alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of William W. Page, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[882 NYS2d 923]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 11, 2008, which dismissed the employee’s appeal from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision dated and mailed October 25, 2007, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) sustained the initial determination finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. During a telephone hearing to determine the timeliness of his April 22, 2008 appeal, claimant admitted to receiving and reading the ALJ’s decision, including the instructions regarding the taking of an appeal, shortly after it was mailed, but testified that the delay in requesting an appeal was due to his belief that an appeal would be futile. Specifically, claimant testified that, upon reading the ALJ’s decision, he was “totally dismayed” and “just lost the interest and the will” to pursue the matter further. In April 2008, upon receiving a postinvestigation determination of the Division of Human Rights which apparently contained encouraging findings, claimant testified that it occurred to him that he should appeal the October 2007 determination. Subsequently, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board dismissed claimant’s appeal as untimely, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. Labor Law § 621 (1) requires that an appeal to the Board from an ALJ’s decision must be made within 20 days of the date the decision is mailed (see *Matter of Pascarella [New York State Thruway Auth.—Commissioner of Labor],*59 AD3d 835, 835 [2009]; *Matter of Cuccia [Martinez & Ritorto,*P.C.— *723
      *Commissioner of Labor],*55 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2008]; *Matter of Bottex [Commissioner of Labor],*48 AD3d 855, 856 [2008]). Because “[t]his statutory time period is strictly construed” *(Matter of Uwaezuoke [Commissioner of Labor],*57 AD3d 1193, 1193-1194 [2008]; *see Matter of Moorer [Commissioner of Labor],*40 AD3d 1335 [2007]), we discern no basis upon which to disturb the Board’s decision dismissing the appeal, made more than five months after the expiration of the 20-day time limit, as untimely.

Peters, J.P., Rose, Kane, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
```

[Federal Register: July 7, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 129)17 CFR Part 1
Recordkeeping Final rule]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36568-36569]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jy99-8]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1


Recordkeeping

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.


[[Page 36569]]


ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On May 27, 1999, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``Commission'') published a rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 28735)
announcing final amendments to the recordkeeping obligations imposed in
Regulation 1.31. The Commission's rule provided that all the amendments
would become effective on June 28, 1999. Recently the Commission
learned that recordkeepers using only electronic storage media may need
additional time to finalize arrangements with third party technical
consultants necessary to meet the new condition imposed in section
(b)(4) of amended Regulation 1.31.\1\ In order to avoid undue hardship
for these recordkeepers, and in view of the alternative safeguards
protecting the Commission's right to timely access to required records
stored electronically, the Commission has decided to extend the
effective date of Sec. 1.31(b)(4)'s requirements until September 27,
1999.

    \1\ Section (b)(4) of the amended regulation requires
recordkeepers who use only electronic storage media to preserve some
or all of their required records to enter into an arrangement with a
third party technical consultant. This arrangement must provide that
the technical consultant will have access to and the ability to
download information from the recordkeeper's electronic storage
media to a medium acceptable under amended Regulation 1.31. The
technical consultant must also file an undertaking to provide the
Commission with access to the recordkeeper's required records under
specified conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Effective July 7, 1999, 17 CFR 1.31(b)(4) is stayed until
September 27, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edson G. Case, Counsel, or Laurie
Plessala Duperier, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Telephone (202) 418-5430.

    Under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 12a(5), 17 CFR 1.31(b)(4) is stayed
until September 27, 1999.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 30, 1999 by the Commission.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-17004 Filed 7-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN    TO INDEX ========**

----
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1450 

Congratulating the Texas A&M University Aggies for winning the men’s 

and women’s NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2010 

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Texas A&M University Aggies for winning the men’s and women’s NCAA Division I Outdoor 

Track and Field Championship. 

Whereas, on June 12, 2010, the Texas A&M University 

Aggies won the men’s and women’s NCAA Division I 

Outdoor Track and Field Championship in Eugene, Oregon, at Hayward Field; 

Whereas the Texas A&M women amassed 72 points, winning 

the meet by 15 points over runner-up Oregon’s 57; 

Whereas the Aggie men scored 55, just 1 point ahead of the 

Florida Gators, who had 54; 

Whereas Texas A&M had a squad of 28 dedicated athletes in 

Eugene, Oregon, including Texas A&M sprinters Jessica 

Beard and Curtis Mitchell who were selected Track AthVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:33 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1450.IH HR1450

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1450 IH 

letes of the Year in the south-central region of the United 

States; 

Whereas the Aggies have won consecutive national championships under the leadership of head coach Pat Henry; 

Whereas head coach Pat Henry is the only coach to sweep 

the men’s and women’s titles in the same year and he 

has now done it 4 times; 

Whereas Aggie head coach Pat Henry earned men’s and 

women’s Head Coach of the Year honors while Assistant 

Coach of the Year honors were awarded to A&M assistant coaches Vince Anderson and Jim VanHootegem; 

Whereas this season, both Aggie squads were first in national 

team rankings for much of the season and won the Big 

12 Indoor, the NCAA Indoor, Texas Relays, and the Big 

12 Outdoor; and 

Whereas the Texas A&M University’s men and women’s track 

team have brought pride and honor to the State of 

Texas: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) congratulates the Texas A&M University 

3 track team and the university’s athletes, coaches, 

4 faculty, students, and alumni on the winning of the 

5 2010 NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field 

6 Championship; and 

7 (2) recognizes Texas A&M University for its ex8 cellence as an institution of higher education. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1290/2004

of 14 July 2004         

fixing the import duties in the rice sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 of 29 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 as regards import duties in the rice sector (2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The import duties in the rice sector referred to in Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 are fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information given in Annex II.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 July 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 14 July 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2002 (OJ L 62, 5.3.2002, p. 27).

(2)OJ L 189, 30.7.1996, p. 71. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2294/2003 (OJ L 340, 24.12.2003, p. 12).

----

ANNEX I

Import duties on rice and broken rice

----

(1)  The duty on imports of rice originating in the ACP States is applicable, under the arrangements laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2286/2002 (OJ L 348, 21.12.2002, p. 5) and amended Commission Regulation (EC) No 638/2003 (OJ L 93, 10.4.2003, p. 3).

(2)  In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1706/98, the duties are not applied to products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and imported directly into the overseas department of Réunion.

(3)  The import levy on rice entering the overseas department of Réunion is specified in Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95.

(4)  The duty on imports of rice not including broken rice (CN code 1006 40 00), originating in Bangladesh is applicable under the arrangements laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3491/90 (OJ L 337, 4.12.1990, p. 1) and amended Commission Regulation (EEC) No 862/91 (OJ L 88, 9.4.1991, p. 7).

(5)  No import duty applies to products originating in the OCT pursuant to Article 101(1) of amended Council Decision 91/482/EEC (OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1).

(6)  For husked rice of the Basmati variety originating in India and Pakistan, a reduction of EUR/t 250 applies (Article 4a of amended Regulation (EC) No 1503/96).

(7)  Duties fixed in the Common Customs Tariff.

(8)  The duty on imports of rice originating in and coming from Egypt is applicable under the arrangements laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2184/96 (OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 196/97 (OJ L 31, 1.2.1997, p. 53).

----

ANNEX II

Calculation of import duties for rice

----

(1)  Duties fixed in the Common Customs Tariff.

----
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1479/2004

of 19 August 2004         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 August 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 August 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 19 August 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
<PAGE>
                               EXHIBIT  11.1

                   GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                 (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    THREE                SIX
                                                                MONTHS ENDED        MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  JUNE 30,            JUNE 30,     
                                                             ------------------  ------------------
                                                               1997      1996      1997      1996  
                                                             --------  --------  --------   --------
<S>                                                          <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>
Net loss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ (2,987) $ (1,410) $ (6,391)  $(3,228)
                                                             --------  --------  --------   --------

Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding . . . .     6,725     6,677     6,725     6,678

Weighted average effect of common share equivalents . . . .         -         -         -         -
                                                             --------  --------  --------   --------

Weighted average shares outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . .     6,725     6,677     6,725     6,678
                                                             --------  --------  --------   --------

Net loss per common share and common share equivalent . . .  $  (0.44) $  (0.21) $  (0.95)  $ (0.48)
                                                             ========  ========  ========   ========
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen R. Ohl, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 349]—

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County (Sullivan, J.), rendered December 10, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sexual act in the first degree and robbery in the first degree.

A 10-count superior court information charged defendant with various theft and sex-related offenses, as well as one weapons-related offense, stemming from his role in a nighttime home invasion during the course of which his companion was armed with a shotgun and the female occupant of the home was physically and sexually assaulted. Defendant thereafter waived indictment and pleaded guilty to criminal sexual act in the first degree and robbery in the first degree. The plea was in satisfaction of all counts with the understanding that County Court would sentence defendant to concurrent, determinate 18-year prison sentences and five years of postrelease supervision and that he would waive the right to appeal. Following defendant’s execution of a written waiver of the right to appeal, he was *1202sentenced in accordance with the plea. He now appeals claiming that the waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and that the agreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive.

Defendant acknowledged at sentencing that he read the written waiver of the right to appeal and voluntarily signed it. A handwritten notation placed on the form indicating that defendant was “concerned with [his] future appeal rights” prompted a discussion concerning his understanding of the waiver. At this time, defense counsel advised County Court that he informed defendant “about what types of issues are affected by a waiver of appeal and what types of issues are not deemed to be covered by a waiver of appeal.” After additional discussions, it was agreed that the original notation would be crossed out and replaced with an acknowledgment by defendant that he “waive[d] all waivable rights.” These circumstances satisfy us that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Lewis,*48 AD3d 880, 881 [2008]). This being the case, defendant is foreclosed from challenging the severity of his sentence *(see People v Getter,*52 AD3d 1117 [2008]; *People v Nickell,*49 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2008]).

Mercure, J.P., *Rose,*Lahtinen, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
PAGE><PAGE
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                         For the Three Months Ended

                             December 31, 1997                     December 
31, 1996
                               Weighted                               Weighted
                                Average     Per Share                  
Average   Per Share
                      Income    Shares      Amount       Income        
Shares    Amount

<S>                   <C>       <C>         <C>          <C>           
<C>        <C>
Basic EPS
Income available to
 common stockholders  $539,098   1,276,741   $0.42        $579,340      
1,272,348  $0.46

Effect of Dilutive
  Securities
Options                    ---      12,182      ---            ---          
7,076

Diluted EPS
Income available to
 common stockholders  $539,098   1,288,923    $0.42       $579,340       
1,279,424  $0.45
                      
====================================================================


                                         For the Nine Months Ended

                             December 31, 1997                     December 
31, 1996
                               Weighted                               Weighted
                                Average     Per Share                  
Average   Per Share
                      Income    Shares      Amount       Income        
Shares    Amount

<S>                   <C>       <C>         <C>          <C>           
<C>        <C>
Basic EPS
Income available to
 common stockholders  $1,363,475 1,275,825   $1.07        $1,223,626      
1,271,690  $0.96

Effect of Dilutive
  Securities
Options                    ---        9,121    ---               ---          
6,025

Diluted EPS
Income available to
 common stockholders  $1,363,475 1,284,946    $1.06       $1,223,626       
1,277,715 $0.96
                      
====================================================================

</TABLE>
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1432/2004

of 10 August 2004         

amending Regulations (EC) No 2366/98 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/99 to 2003/04 marketing years and (EC) No 2768/98 on the aid scheme for the private storage of olive oil

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 136/66 of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (1), and in particular Articles 5 and 12a thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

In Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2768/98, ‘31 October 2004’ is replaced by ‘31 October 2005’.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 10 August 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025/66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 865/2004 (OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 97).

(2)OJ L 210, 20.7.1998, p. 32. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 865/2004.

(3)OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 50. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1780/2003 (OJ L 260, 11.10.2003, p. 6).

(4)OJ L 346, 22.12.1998, p. 14. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 763/2003 (OJ L 109, 1.5.2003, p. 12).

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________
No. 95-20836

____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KURT STEVEN WITTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(H-92-CR-207-1)

__________________________________________________

August 9, 1996 Before JONES, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant Kurt Steven Witte argues that his sentence should be

reversed because he was not allowed to exercise his right of

allocution at sentencing. Defense counsel did not raise this issue

before the dist rict court. Thus, we review this issue only for

plain error. Based on our review of the record, we hold that the

district court did not commit plain error with regard to Witte's-2-

right of allocution at sentencing. S ee generally United States v.

Olano
, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993);

United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160 (1994) ( en banc ).

Witte next argues that his sentence should be reversed because

the district court failed to recognize that he had the authority to

depart downwards from the applicable sentencing guidelines range.

See Witte v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 2199, 132 L.

Ed. 2d 351 (1995). Based on our review of the record, we find that

the district court did recognize that he had the authority to

depart, and exercised his discretion not to depart. Consequently,

we hold that the district court did not err by refusing to depart

downwards.

We AFFIRM.