alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Anthony S. Aceto, Petitioner, v Sebastian Convertino, as Executive Secretary of the Municipal Housing Authority of the City of Utica, et al., Respondents.

Memorandum: Respondent’s determination to terminate petitioner’s employment was supported by substantial evidence in the record and did not constitute a disproportionate penalty. However, respondent should pay petitioner the salary he would have earned between August 1, 1984 and December 12, 1984, less any compensation derived from other employment during that period and any unemployment benefits received for that period (Civil Service Law § 75 [3]; *Matter of Sinicropi v Bennett,*60 NY2d 918). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alan Jones, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered September 13, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, *495and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Naro, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which sought the suppression of identification testimony.

Justice Lazer has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly found that the witness Liver-men’s repeated observations of the defendant in the neighborhood in which the crime occurred, prior to the crime, including an observation of the defendant at a party earlier that evening, coupled with his ability to observe the defendant clearly during the commission of the crime, constituted a sufficient independent basis for his in-court identification.

Concerning the defendant’s contention that numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial, we note that while some of the prosecutor’s remarks would have been better left unsaid, for the most part, the prosecutor’s remarks on summation were a fair response to remarks made by defense counsel on summation *(see, People v Anthony,*24 NY2d 696). Moreover, any error was rendered harmless by the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2021063EN.01000201.xml

| 23.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9410 — Saudi Aramco/SABIC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 63/02)

On 27 February 2020, 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 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 32020M9410. 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 32020M9410. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 17, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

129485 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. RUTHVYN J. FREDERICK, and Stephen J. Markman, ALLAN REMY, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 129485 COA: 254336 Wayne CC: 02-238844-NI U.S. ICE CORP., Defendant-Appellant,

and

HASAN HAMADI-ZOMA DEBROSSARD, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Ju stice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for l eave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISM ISSED with prejudice and without costs.

l0314 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 17, 2006

Clerk
#### KOHN, Respondent, v. HAMBURG-AMERICAN PACKET CO., Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

November 30, 1896.)

Action by Sara ICohn against the Hamburg-American Packet Company. Julius J. Frank, for appellant. Mashbir & Cukor, for respondent.

CONLAN, J.

Appeal from an order denying a motion for leave to amend an answer. The order appealed from is reversed, and the defendant is allowed to amend his answer on payment of the costs and disbursements to date, and stipulating that the plaintiff may discontinue, within five days after the service of the said amended answer, without costs, if she so desire. Order reversed.
EXHIBIT 32

1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Shirley Singleton, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Edgewater Technology, Inc. (the Company), and Kevin R. Rhodes, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of her or his knowledge:

The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the
period covered by the Periodic Report.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    SHIRLEY SINGLETON                                            
|                     |  |  |  | Shirley Singleton                                                   
|                     |  |  |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer                     
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    KEVIN R. RHODES                                              
|                     |  |  |  | Kevin R. Rhodes                                                     
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
Exhibit 32

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

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of American Entertainment and Animation Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that: 

     1.     The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-KSB") of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.     The information contained in the Form 10-KB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  

 

 

/s/ Marc Hazout

Marc Hazout, Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 12, 2003
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

LR/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AURA SANTOS-RIVAS, a/k/a Ada

Martinez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70651

Agency No. A028-956-466

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Aura Santos-Rivas, a native and citizen of Guatemela, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is 

FILED

JAN 08 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LR/Research 2 07-70651

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a 

motion to reopen and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in 

immigration proceedings. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). 

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos-Rivas’ motion to 

reopen as untimely because it was filed in 2006, 18 years after the final order of 

deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (motion to reopen must be filed within

ninety days of final order of deportation or prior to September 30, 1996), and 

Santos-Rivas failed to establish that any of the regulatory exceptions apply, see 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4). It follows that the denial of Santos-Rivas’ motion to 

reopen did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 

2000) (requiring error for a due process violation). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to invoke its sua 

sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. 

INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

Santos-Rivas’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2352 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require making available 

to States affected by determinations that species are endangered species 

or threatened species all data that is the basis of such determinations, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2015 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER (for himself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. 

HUIZENGA of Michigan, and Mr. COLLINS of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require 

making available to States affected by determinations 

that species are endangered species or threatened species 

all data that is the basis of such determinations, 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 ‘‘State, Tribal, and 

5 Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2352 IH

1 SEC. 2. DECISIONAL TRANSPARENCY AND USE OF STATE, 

2 TRIBAL, AND LOCAL INFORMATION. 

3 (a) REQUIRING DECISIONAL TRANSPARENCY WITH

4 AFFECTED STATES.—Section 6(a) of the Endangered 

5 Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1535(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before the first sentence; 

7 and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘Such cooperation shall include’’ 

9 and inserting the following: 

10 ‘‘(2) Such cooperation shall include— 

11 ‘‘(A) before making a determination under 

12 section 4(a), providing to States affected by 

13 such determination all data that is the basis of 

14 the determination; and 

15 ‘‘(B)’’. 

16 (b) ENSURING USE OF STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL

17 INFORMATION.— 

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the Endangered 

19 Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended— 

20 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) 

21 through (21) as paragraphs (3) through (22), 

22 respectively; and 

23 (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the 

24 following: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2352 IH

1 ‘‘(2) The term ‘best scientific and commercial 

2 data available’ includes all such data submitted by 

3 a State, tribal, or county government.’’. 

4 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 7(n) 

5 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(n)) is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘section 3(13)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 

7 3(14)’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In re NOLL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 15, 1896.)

Judicial settlement of the account of Frederick Noll, as general guardian.

No opinion. Order amended by striking out the word “costs,” and adding the words “one bill of costs to the respondents other than Frederick Noll, and none to him.” See 41 N. Y. Supp. 765.
#### PRINCE v. DOUSHKESS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Action by Adolf Prince against Israel Doushkess.

No opinion. Motion granted, with 810 costs, to be credited upon judgment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1805

GOLDIE M. SUTHERLAND, Widow of James T.

Sutherland,

 Petitioner,

 versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

MULLINS COAL COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA

COAL-WORKERS' PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND,

 Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

(02-449-BLA)

Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Goldie M. Sutherland, Petitioner Pro Se. Michelle Seyman Gerdano,

Patricia May Nece, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington,

D.C.; Robert Weinberger, Senior Assistant Attorney General,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Goldie M. Sutherland seeks review of the Benefits Review

Board’s decision and orders affirming the administrative law

judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.

§§ 901-945 (2000) and denying reconsideration. Our review of the

record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon

substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Sutherland v. DOWCP,

No. 02-449-BLA (BRB June 6, 2003). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT      32**

**CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND **

**PRINCIPAL      FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE **

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

|  | 1. | The                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                  15(d) of                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                  and |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial results of operations of the                  Company. |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Alan                    Doyle                                                                                                                                                 |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                        |   |   |   |
| Alan                      DoylePresident                      (Chief Executive Officer),Treasurer                      (Principal Financial Officer)July                      25, 2005 |   |   |        |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FOR HYPERION TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001017648
<NAME> HYPERION TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         242,510
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         374,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 836,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,528
<BONDS>                                        470,784
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    228,674
<COMMON>                                           547
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   836,342
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,776
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (38,638)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (64,842)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (64,842)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    237
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,302)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.80)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

                          UNISON HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
                 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings
                        (In thousands, except per share)


                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                                March 31,
                                                          ---------------------
                                                            1998         1997
                                                          --------     --------

FOR BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE (1)
Shares outstanding at beginning of period .............      6,422        6,078
Shares issued to former Signature shareholders ........         --           40
Conversion of debentures ..............................         --           96
                                                          --------     --------
Weighted average number of shares and share 
   equivalents outstanding ............................      6,422        6,214
                                                          --------     --------
Net loss ..............................................   $ (4,819)    $ (4,082)
                                                          --------     --------
Net loss per share, basic .............................   $  (0.75)    $  (0.66)
                                                          ========     ========


ADDITIONAL DILUTED COMPUTATION (2)
Net loss ..............................................   $ (4,819)    $ (4,082)
Add interest on convertible debentures, 
   net of tax effect ..................................         34           --
                                                          --------     --------
Net loss as adjusted ..................................   $ (4,785)    $ (4,082)
                                                          --------     --------
Weighted average number of shares outstanding .........      6,422        6,214
Shares issuable upon conversion of debentures .........        636           --
                                                          --------     --------
Weighted average number of shares, as adjusted ........      7,058        6,214
                                                          --------     --------
Net loss per share, diluted ...........................   $  (0.68)    $  (0.66)
                                                          ========     ========


(1)  Shares used in these  tables are  weighted  based on the number of days the
     shares were outstanding or assumed to be outstanding during each period.

(2)  This  calculation  is  submitted in  accordance  with  Regulation  S-K Item
     601(b)(11)  although it is contrary to Statement  of  Financial  Accounting
     Standards No. 128 because it produces an anti-dilutive result.
#### Hier, Respondent, v. Heyenga, Appellant.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

July 1, 1890.)

Ho opinion. Judgment and order reversed on the exceptions, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.