alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 

CESAREO TERAN, 07-CV-05389 (AKH) 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

-againstNOTICE OF DEFENDANT VERIZON 

NEW YORK INC.’S ADOPTION OF 

ANSWER TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

VERIZON NEW YORK INC., 

et al.

 

 

Defendants. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Verizon New York Inc. (“Verizon”) 

hereby adopts as its Answer in the instant case its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint which 

was filed and served on October 16, 2007 in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). In accordance with Case Management 

Order No. 4, the allegations of the instant Check-Off Complaint are deemed to be denied. 

Verizon also incorporates by reference all averments and denials of its Answer to Plaintiffs’ 

Master Complaint as though same were more fully set forth herein at length. Verizon further 

adopts the responses contained in any Amended Answer filed and served herein. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Verizon reserves the right to file and 

serve an amended answer and specifically reserves the right to interpose cross-claims and thirdparty claims. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against Verizon, together with its cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 28 Filed 12/03/2007 Page 1 of 2
 2 

Dated: November 26, 2007 /s/ Eric F. Leon 

Eric F. Leon 

Lee Ann Stevenson 

Andrew Dunlap 

Michael D. Reisman 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

Citigroup Center 

153 East 53rd Street 

New York, New York 10022-4611 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Attorneys for Defendant Verizon New York Inc.

TO: Christopher LoPalo, Esq. 

WORBY GRONER EDELMAN & NAPOLI BERN, LLP 

115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, New York 10006 

 Robert A. Grochow, Esq. 

ROBERT A. GROCHOW, P.C. 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

 Gregory J. Cannata, Esq. 

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. CANNATA 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 Marc D. Weinblatt, Esq. 

SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK, WOYICK, VIENER & GROSSMAN, P.C. 

100 Herricks Road 

Mineola, New York 11501 

 David Kremen, Esq. 

OSHMAN & MIRISOLA, LLP 

42 Broadway, 10th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

 

All Defense Counsel (via ECF)

Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 28 Filed 12/03/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### FRANCISCO MERCADO *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*Sean K. Crowshaw,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Eileen F. McCarthy,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 2, 2005

The petitioner Francisco Mercado’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 85 Conn. App. 869 (AC 24517), is denied.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

MICHIGAN STATE POLICE TROOPERS

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED

July 16, 2020

v No. 350863

Court of Claims

DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, LC No. 19

- 000030

- MK

Defendant

- Appellee.

Before: C AVANAGH

, P .J., and B ECKERING and G LEICHER , JJ.

B ECKERING J . ( concurring ).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Jane M. Beckering
ALD
- 175
- E NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 2231

___________ IN RE: GEORGE K. TRAMMELL, III, Petitioner

_________________________________ ___ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to Civ. No. 12

- cv - 0014 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 8, 2012 Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : May 17, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM

. Petitioner George Trammell, proceeding pro se , seeks a writ of mandamus. Because Trammell has not demonstrated that he is enti tled to such relief, we will deny his petition. Construed liberally, United States v. Miller , 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) ) , Trammell’s petition appears to stem from a decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery to remove him from his position as the administrator of his late father’s estate . According to Trammell, this decision resulted2 in the forced auction of his home. 1 Litigation over that decision and the sale of his home is ongoing in the state courts. He has twice sought removal to federal court to challenge the auction , and each time the action has been remanded to the state courts

. See Trammell v. Trammell , No. 12

- cv - 0014 (D. De. Jan. 23, 2012); Trammell v. Trammell , No. 11

- cv - 0793 (D. De. Nov. 28, 2011). Trammell is currently pursuing an appeal to this Court challenging one of the District Court’s orders re manding the case. 2 Trammell presently seeks a writ of mandamus preventing proceedings in the state
court relating to the sale of hi s home, and contends that the state courts lack jurisdiction over the matter during the pendency of his federal appeal. This is simply not so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) ( after a district court has remanded an action to the state courts, they “may t hereupon proceed with such case ” ). A petitioner seeking mandamus must demonstrate, among other things, a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia

1 Trammell has filed numerous federal complaints, most of wh ich are nearly indecipherable and concern state litigation over his father’s estate. See, e.g. , In re Trammell , 12

- 1777, 2012 WL 1242331 (3d Cir. Apr. 13, 2012) (denying petition for writ of mandamus seeking to prevent auction of Trammell’s home); Trammel l v. Trammell , No. 11

- 3155, 446 F. App'x 530, 531 (3d Cir. 2011); Trammell v. Lillies Love & Care Daycare Ctr., et al. , No. 11

– 3156, 448 F. App'x 188 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Trammell v. All Other Collateral Heirs of Estate of Marie Jones Polk , No. 11

– 3154 , 446 F. App'x 437 (3d Cir. 2011) (abstruse complaint asserting claims regarding the estate of Trammell’s deceased aunt). , 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004). Trammell has not, and we w ill therefore deny his petition.

2 The merits of that appeal, C.A. No. 12

- 2057, are not at issue here.
**Exhibit 23.2**

[RYDER SCOTT COMPANYLETTERHEAD]

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby consents to the useof its name and the information from its reports regarding its estimates ofreserves and future net revenues from the production and sale of these reservesfor the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002 in thisAmendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to Pogo Producing Company’s Annual Report forthe year ended December 31, 2005, including the filing of its letter reports asexhibits thereto, and to the incorporation by reference thereof into PogoProducing Company’s previously filed Registration Statement Nos. 33-54969,333-04233, 333-75105, 333-75105-01, 333-75105-02, 333-74861, 333-42426,333-42428, 333-60800, 333-67324, 333-65548, 333-86856, 333-98205, 333-102775,333-115130, 333-86417, 333-126097, 333-130557 and 333-136926.
|        | /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |                          |
|   | **RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.** |

 

Houston, TexasOctober 27, 2006

 

----
NO. 06-14-00186-CR, 06-14-00187-CR, 06-14-00188-CR

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA DARRIAN DE’ANTHONY DAVIS-SANDERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

* * * * * APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF * * * * *

DONALD K. HOOVER

Counsel for Appellant Bar I.D. No. 24053019 414 W. Sam Rayburn Bonham, Texas 75418 903/820-8464 (Telephone) 972/767-4355 (Facsimile)

NO. 06-14-00186-CR, 06-14-00187-CR, 06-14-00188-CR ACCEPTED 06-14-00188-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 3/16/2015 2:20:48 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKNO. 06-14-00186-CR, 06-14-00187-CR, 06-14-00188-CR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA DARRIAN DE’ANTHONY DAVIS-SANDERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee * * * * * APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF * * * * * TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA: Comes now the Appellant, by and th rough his counsel of record, and respectfully requests this Court grant him anextension of time to file his appellant brief in the above named causes, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. On September 19, 2014, the Appellant was adjudicated and sentenced to 60 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On October 17, 2014 the Appellant timely filed his Notice of Appeal. Mr. Davis -Sanders also filed a motion for new trialon October 17, 2014, which was denied by operation of law. The reporter’s record and clerk’s record were with the Court on or about February 12, 2015. Counsel for the Appe llant received the clerk’s and reporter’s records on the same date. The Appellant’s brief is due on March 16, 2015. Counsel for the Appellant was in trial, three of the last four weeks. Additional time is necessary for Appellant’s counsel to finish review of the record, research and identify the grounds for appeal, and consult with the Appellant to draft a brief. Appellant counsel now makes his first re quest for an extension of time to file the Appellant’s Brief. The Appellant re quests an extension of time until April 16, 2015 to file the Appellant’s brief. This reque st is not for the purpose of delay, but so that justice may be done. WHEREFORE, the Appellant prays that the Court grant this motion for extension of time in which to file his appellate brief in this case. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Donald Hoover Donald Hoover Counsel for Appellant Bar I.D. No. 24053019 414 W. Sam Rayburn Bonham, Texas 75418 (903) 820-8464 (Telephone) (972) 767-4355 (Facsimile)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief has been mailed via firs t-class mail, or hand-delivered, on March 12, 2015, to: Via Hand Delivery Fannin County District Attorney’s Office Fannin County Courthouse 101 E. Sam Rayburn Bonham, Texas 75418 Via first-class mail Mr. Darrian D. Davis-Sanders #01957802 Eastham Unit- TDCJ 2665 Prison Road #1 Lovelady, Texas 75851

/s/ Donald Hoover Donald Hoover
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 35 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 35 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 35 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Parole Commission

Pursuant To The Government In the Sunshine Act (Public Law 94-409) [5 U.S.C. Section 552b].

# AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:

Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

9:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 17, 2001.

# PLACE:

5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the open Parole Commission meeting:

1. Approval of minutes of previous Commission meeting.

2. Reports from the Chairman, Commissioners, Legal, Chief of Staff, Case Operations, and Administrative Sections.

3. Adoption of Rule for attorney qualifications for District of Columbia Code cases similar to Rule adopted for federal cases at 28 CFR § 2.61.

4. Adoption of Final Version of the U.S. Parole Commission Rules and Procedures Manual.

# AGENCY CONTACT:

Sam Robertson, Case Operations, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5962.

Dated: January 9, 2001.

Michael A. Stover,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 01-1160  Filed 1-10-01; 10:55 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
# C_2011048EN.01016701.xml

| 15.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/167 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/167

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2008/9/EC laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State’

COM(2010) 381 final — 2010/0205 (CNS)

2011/C 48/31

On 4 August 2010 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2008/9/EC laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State’

‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2008/9/EC laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State’

COM(2010)381 final – 2010/0205 (CNS).

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 465th plenary session of 15 and 16 September 2010 (meeting of 15 September 2010), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 15 September 2010.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI

---
Clear All

        05 August 2023    

                    USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) Arrives in Narvik, Norway                 
                USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19), assigned to the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), and embarked 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) Special Operations Capable (SOC), arrived in Narvik, Norway for a scheduled port visit to enhance the U.S.-Norway relationship and demonstrate our continued commitment to            

        09 November 2022    

                    Marine Corps 247th Birthday 'Relay Run' Makes Strides on Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story                 
                Marines, Sailors and civilians assigned to Expeditionary Warfare Training Group, Atlantic (EWTGLANT) celebrated the 247th Marine Corps Birthday with a relay run on Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story from Nov. 7-9.            

        05 October 2022    

                    Memorial that honors the sacrifices of Navy Corpsmen to be unveiled                 
                CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. – Just outside Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, structures and statues rise from a plot of land. This space is hallowed ground, where names and sacrifices are not forgotten. The Lejeune Memorial Gardens pays respects to those who have shaped United States military            

        04 July 2022    

                    USS Arlington (LPD 24) arrives in Rijeka, Croatia for mid-deployment voyage repair                 
                The San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS Arlington (LPD 24) and embarked Marines with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) arrived in Rijeka, Croatia, July 4, 2022, to complete a scheduled maintenance availability and to strengthen relations with a key NATO ally.            

        28 June 2022    

                    SECNAV presides over ESG2 change of command                 
                NORFOLK, VA — By 1030 on June 24, USS Bataan’s (LHD 5) hangar bay was full of Marines in midnight blue coats and Sailors in white chokers. Most of them chatted amongst themselves in hopes it might help kill the 30 remaining minutes before show time. A smaller handful scurried about non-skid to sort            

        05 May 2022    

                    USS Arlington (LPD 24), 22nd MEU arrive in Greece for bilateral training                 
                VOLOS, Greece - The San Antonio-class dock landing ship USS Arlington (LPD 24), attached to the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), arrived in Volos, Greece for a scheduled port visit in support of the U.S.- Greek (Hellenic) bilateral training exercise Alexander the Great 2022 (ATG22), May 4,            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Exhibit 10.2


 


THIRD AMENDMENT


TO THE


FAIRPORT SAVINGS
BANK


SUPPLEMENTAL
EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT


AGREEMENT


DATED JULY 30,
2010


FOR


KEVIN MARONEY


 


THIS THIRD
AMENDMENT is entered into this 19th day of December, 2019, by and between FAIRPORT SAVINGS BANK (the
“Bank”), a savings bank located in Fairport, New York, and KEVIN MARONEY (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Bank and the Executive executed the Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement on July 30, 2010 (the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS,
Article 8.1 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended upon mutual consent of the parties thereto; and


 


WHEREAS,
the parties now desire to amend the Agreement for the purpose of providing an enhanced benefit to the Executive in the event of
a Change in Control (as defined in the Agreement) followed within two years by Executive’s separation from service prior
to the Executive attaining age 65;


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
it is agreed by and between the Bank and the Executive as follows:


 


Article 2.4.1
of the Agreement shall be amended and replaced as follows:


 


2.4.1  Amount of Benefit.
The benefit under this Section 2.4 is Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000).


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed this Third Amendment as of the date indicated above.


 


	EXECUTIVE:	 	BANK:
	 	 	FAIRPORT SAVINGS BANK
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Kevin Maroney	 	/s/ Angela M. Krezmer
	Kevin Maroney	 	By:  Angela M. Krezmer
	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
A92A0914.

#### RUCKER v. THE STATE.

(423 SE2d 51)

Johnson, Judge.

Thaddeus Hernandez Rucker appeals from his conviction of operating a motor vehicle after having been declared an habitual violator and the denial of his motion for a new trial. In his sole enumeration of error, Rucker contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach a defense witness by proof of the witness’ prior criminal conviction without introducing a certified copy of the conviction. This enumeration is without merit because the trial court’s ruling, although erroneous, was harmless.

Evidence presented at trial showed that a police officer stopped a jeep being driven in a reckless manner. Rucker was seated in the driver’s seat of the jeep and Andre Payne was in the passenger seat. Rucker asserted as his defense that he was actually the passenger in the jeep and that Payne was the driver. Rucker claimed that he and Payne switched places after being pulled over by the officer because Payne was on parole and feared revocation of his parole status. Payne testified on behalf of Rucker. The State attempted to impeach Payne by questioning him about a prior criminal conviction without introducing a certified copy of that conviction.

It is well-settled that evidence of a witness’ prior convictions must be tendered and admitted in the form of certified copies of the convictions and not by testimony alone. See *Richards v. State,*157 Ga. App. 601, 602-603 (278 SE2d 63) (1981); see also *Allen v. State,*152 Ga. App. 481 (263 SE2d 259) (1979). It was therefore error for the trial court to allow oral evidence of Payne’s prior felony convictions absent certified copies of the convictions. However, such error was harmless given the circumstances of the instant case.

Where error inures to the benefit of the defendant it is harmless. See generally *Kirk v. State,*252 Ga. 133 (311 SE2d 821) (1984). Rucker benefitted from the improper introduction of Payne’s prior felony convictions as such convictions supported the defense theory that Payne switched seats with Rucker in the jeep to avoid having his parole status revoked.

Furthermore, the transcript shows that during the sentencing phase of the trial, Rucker admitted that he was, in fact, the driver of the jeep at the time that the officer stopped them. An admission during the sentencing phase is considered an admission in judicio and as such renders all trial error harmless. See *Johnson v. State,*171 Ga. App. 91 (318 SE2d 799) (1984); see also *Harris v. State,*133 Ga. App. *652310 (211 SE2d 144) (1974). In order for an error at trial to warrant reversal on appeal such error must be harmful. *Greer v. State,*201 Ga. App. 775 (2) (412 SE2d 843) (1991).

Decided September 30, 1992.

*Shandor S. Badaruddin,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Henry M. Newkirk, Benjamin H. Oehlert III, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope, J., concurs. Carley, P. J., concurs in judgment only.*
#### SULLY *v.*AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE.

No. 266 of October Term, 1899.

Submitted October 9, 1900.

Decided October 22, 1900.

For reasons stated in the opinion of the court a motion to retax costs in this case is granted and the costs modified accordingly.

This was a motion to retax the costs in this case.

*Mr. Samuel O. Williams*for the motion.

*Mr. R. E. Mountcastle*opposing.

*Mr. E. J. Baxter*for the motion.

*Mr. R. E. L. Mountcastle*opposing.

*Mr. Samuel C. Williams*opposing.

Mr. Justice Peckham

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is in substance a motion to retax costs in this case.

Upon the day of the final adjournment of the court, May 28, 1900, the cause was decided, and a decree entered reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee as to the plaintiff in error Carhart, who was one of several plaintiffs in error, with costs to be paid by the American National Bank. Subsequently to the adjournment all the costs of this court were taxed against the bank, which now prays for a retaxation.

The decree of this court has been misinterpreted. It does not mean that all the costs in this court are to be paid by the bank, but only the costs of the plaintiff in error Carhart, in regard to whom alone the judgment of the court below was reversed.

*The motion to retax the costs is*granted, *and the taxation modified to that extent.*