alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Ronald Miller, Petitioner, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 849]

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated December 10, 1997, that petitioner is not entitled to occupancy of the subject public housing apartment as a remaining family member or one residing in the premises with written permission of management (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Beatrice Shainswit, J.], entered September 25, 1998), unanimously annulled, without costs, and the petition granted to the further *350extent of remanding the matter to New York City Housing Authority for hearing on the issue of petitioner’s fitness for tenancy.

Under .the circumstances presented, we find that respondent’s determination that petitioner was not entitled to “remaining tenant” status was irrational. Among other things, we note that, petitioner’s ten-year presence in the apartment had not been covert and respondent had affirmatively indicated its willingness to permit petitioner’s continued occupancy subject to a criminal background check. It appears that the only significant reason given by the project manager for a denial of “remaining tenant” status was a 20 year old criminal conviction, a fact that does not automatically bar tenancy. On this record, we cannot ascertain whether a middle-aged diabetic, suffering from heart problems, asthma, hepatitis, and obesity, poses a threat to other tenants. Accordingly, an administrative hearing should be conducted to determine whether sufficient mitigating factors are present so as to render petitioner fit for tenancy. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
Penny Robertson BRANTON, Plaintiff, v. Lawrence Edward BRANTON, Defendant.

No. COA17-1207

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4687 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4687

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for the inspection of 
     pipeline facilities that are transferred by sale and pipeline 
         facilities that are abandoned, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2014

   Ms. Hahn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for the inspection of 
     pipeline facilities that are transferred by sale and pipeline 
         facilities that are abandoned, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pipeline Inspection Enforcement Act 
of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PIPELINE INSPECTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 60108 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Inspection of Transferred Pipeline Facilities.--With respect 
to a pipeline facility that is transferred by sale, the Secretary shall 
require by regulation that--
            ``(1) not later than 180 days after the date of the sale, 
        the person purchasing the facility conduct an inspection of the 
        facility to confirm the status of any pipeline listed as active 
        or abandoned; and
            ``(2) the regulatory authority responsible for inspections 
        of the facility ensure that the inspection described in 
        paragraph (1) is conducted.
    ``(f) Inspection of Abandoned Pipeline Facilities.--With respect to 
a pipeline facility that newly lists a pipeline as abandoned, the 
Secretary shall require by regulation that the regulatory authority 
responsible for inspections of the facility, together with the person 
owning or operating the facility, conduct an inspection of the facility 
to confirm the status of the pipeline as abandoned.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to a pipeline facility that is transferred or listed as abandoned 
after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57894-57895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19887]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-960-1910-BJ] ES-053598, Group 22, Maine]


Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Maine

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.

ACTION: Notice of filing of plat of survey, Maine; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management published a notice in the 
Federal Register concerning the filing of a plat of survey. The notice 
contained an incorrect meridian description.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston 
Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia

[[Page 57895]]

22153, Attn: Cadastral Survey, 703-440-1688.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 24, 2005, in FR Doc. 05-16815 on 
page 49669, under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and ``The lands we 
surveyed are'', correct ``Township 1, Range 6, East of the West line of 
the State'' to read: ``Township 1, Range 6, West of the East line of 
the State''.

    Dated: September 28, 2005.
Stephen D. Douglas,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 05-19887 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
STATE of North Carolina v. C'Quwan JOHNSON

No. 411P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Kirby H. Smith, III, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Johnson, C'Quwan

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Seth H. Edwards, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th of December 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
STATE of North Carolina v. Jeffrey Michael CHARETTE, Defendant.

No. COA17-1238

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 21, 2018

NO ERROR.
# C_2008128EN.01002703.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (High Court of Justice of Galicia), Spain) — Doña Rosa Méndez López v Instituto Nacional de Empleo (INEM); Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-97/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
#### STATE ex rel. Marcel DUGAR v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-1431.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Dugar, Marcel;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 99-191; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02 KH 260.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.2

                                  Director Fees
                                  -------------

      Each director of PennFed Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") also is
a director of Penn Federal Savings Bank (the "Bank"). Each non-employee
director, other than the Chairman of the Board, currently receives an annual
retainer of $33,000 for service on the Bank's Board of Directors and an annual
retainer of $2,000 for service on the Company's Board of Directors. For the
Chairman, these annual amounts are $75,000 and $10,000, respectively. Each
director other than the Chairman also receives a fee of $500 for each meeting of
the Bank's Board attended and for each meeting of the Company's Board attended.
For the Chairman, these fees are $750 and $500, respectively. Each member of the
Audit Committee receives $500 for each Audit Committee meeting attended ($600
for the Chairman). In addition, each director receives $400 per meeting for all
other Company Board committee meetings attended ($500 for the chairman of each
committee). Each non-employee director also receives $5,000 for the payment of
an annual life insurance premium ($10,000 for the Chairman of the Board).
STATE of North Carolina v. Nancy Benge AUSTIN

No. 294PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed September 21, 2018

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

CERTIORARI IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60155

JESUS J. CARDENAS-LARA, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A90-732-292

-------------------- March 7, 2002 Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus J. Cardenas-Lara petitions for review of an order ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) holding that CardenasLara’s state conviction for felony driving while intoxicated was an aggravated felony warranting his removal from this country. The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for review and to remand the case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of United States v. Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001). Cardenas-Lara has not replied to the respondent’s motion to remand.No. 01-60155 -2- Cardenas-Lara’s petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the BIA for disposition consistent with Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d at 927. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.
In the MATTER OF Douglas Andrew GAINES, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001342

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 24, 2018

**16ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel asks this Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17(c) of **17the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). The petition also seeks appointment of the Receiver to protect the interests of respondent's clients pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent's license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, Receiver, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent's client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain. Mr. Lumpkin shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent's clients. Mr. Lumpkin may make disbursements from respondent's trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, *633escrow and/or operating account(s) of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, Receiver, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, Receiver, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent's mail and the authority to direct that respondent's mail be delivered to Mr. Lumpkin's office. Mr. Lumpkin's appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless an extension of the period of appointment is requested.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty* C.J.

FOR THE COURT
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Ashutosh Roy, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of eGain Corporation; and

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ ASHUTOSH ROY                 |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------|
|   |   | Ashutosh Roy                     |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer          |
|   |   |                             |
|   |   | Date: January 12, 2018 |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2022

No. 04-22-00264-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.J.D.L.G., a Child

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA01970

Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Appellees, the Attorney Ad Litem and E.B. and J.B., have filed motions for en banc 

reconsideration. A majority of the court hereby requests responses to appellees’ motions from 

appellant J.A.M. and from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 49.5. The responses must be filed in this court by December 21, 2022. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
STATE v. Juan Carlos RODRIGUEZ

302A14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Ms. Barbara S. Blackman, Durham, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Rodriguez, Juan Carlos

Mr. John F. Carella, Staff Attorney, for Rodriguez, Juan Carlos

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Ms. Jennifer Martin, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Mr. Patrick B. Weede, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Mr. Michael Silver, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Ms. Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Ms. Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Ms. Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Rodriguez, Juan Carlos

Mr. James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of March 2016 by Defendant Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
#### Kerry Eugene MOORE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 10-02-076-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Nov. 21, 2002.

William G. Mason, Lummus, Hallman, Pritchard *&*Baker, P.C., Cleburne, for appellant.

Dale S. Hanna, Johnson County District Attorney, David W. Vernon, Johnson County Asst. District Attorney, Cleburne, for appellee.

Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This Court has twice denied motions by the State to file a brief in the above cause exceeding the 50 page limit established by Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.4. Tex. R.App. P. 38.4. Thereafter, the State filed a brief on October 29, 2002 purporting to comply with Rule 38.4. On further review, the Court has determined that the State’s brief does not comply with Rule 38.4.

The State’s brief provides “a more complete statement of facts” in an appendix, which contains twelve pages of “facts relevant to [the issues presented].” Rule 38.1(j)(2) expressly provides, “Items should not be included in the appendix to attempt to avoid the page limits for the brief.” *Id*38.1(j)(2).1

The appellant’s brief presents nine issues in thirty-three pages, excluding the pages containing the identity of parties and counsel, the table of contents, the index of authorities, the statement of the case, the issues presented, the signature, and the certificate of service. *Id.*38.4. The State is directed to prepare and file an amended brief no longer than fifty pages, excluding the pages containing the identity of parties and counsel, the table of contents, the index of authorities, the statement of the case, the issues presented, the signature, the certificate of service, and the appendix, if any. *Id*38.4, 38.9(a). The State shall not include items in an appendix to avoid the 50-page limit of Rule 38.4. The State’s brief shall be filed *32within ten days after the date of this order. No further extensions will be granted. If the State fails to comply, the Court will strike the State’s October 29 brief and submit this cause on the appellant’s brief alone. *Id.*38.9(a).

1

. Actually, Rule 38 does not expressly provide for the inclusion of an appendix in a criminal brief. *See*Tex.R.App. P. 38.1 Q) (providing for "Appendix in Civil Cases”). Such an appendix is often helpful however. Nevertheless, a party who chooses to provide an appendix in a criminal brief must not use the appendix in an effort to avoid the page limits of Rule 38.4.
In the MATTER OF: A.M.

No. COA17-1257

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

REVERSED.
WASCO LLC v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES

164P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

David Guidry, Attorney at Law, Adam G. Sowatzka, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Cory Hohnbaum, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for WASCO LLC.

Daniel Hirschman, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Environment And Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of August 2017 by Petitioner for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
STATE v. Eugene MATTHEWS

28P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Eugene Matthews, For Matthews, Eugene.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for the State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of January 2018 by Defendant for Notice of Concern for Constructive Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
STATE of North Carolina v. Marvin Louis MILLER, Jr.

No. COA17-1215

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

REVERSED.
STATE v. Toni TURNAGE

181P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 20, 2018

Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Ms. Katherine Whitney Dickinson-Schultz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Turnage, Toni

Mr. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Mr. Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of June 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of June 2018."
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON

411A94-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2018

Robert T. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, G. Robert Hicks, III, Assistant District Attorney, William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Law, D. Clark Smith, Jr., Attorney at Law, Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, Durham, David Weiss, Attorney at Law, Brian W. Stull, Attorney at Law, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeffrey Gerrish, Attorney at Law, James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Gregory B. Craig, Attorney at Law, Alex T. Haskell, Attorney at Law, For Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, for Experts in Law and Implicit Bias.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Becton, Charles, et al.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Durham, Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors.

*379The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by North Carolina Council of Churches for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of July 2018."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).