alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CA2009020EN.01000101.xml

| 27.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 20/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 20/1

---

DECISION

DECISION

(2009/C 20 A/01)

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Employment of other servants of the European Communities, laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004, and in particular to Article 30 of the Staff Regulations,

Having regard to the Bureau decision on determining the Appointing Authority, as last amended on 26 October 2004,

Having regard to Notices of Open Competition

PE/90/A, PE/91/A, PE/94/A, PE/95/A, PE/96/A, PE/97/A, PE/98/A, PE/99/A, PE/66/S, PE/67/S, PE/72/S, PE/80/S, PE/87/S, PE/88/S, PE/89/S, PE/91/S, A/94, A/95, A/96-P, A/97-P, EUR/A/155, EUR/A/158, EUR/A/159, EUR/A/161, EUR/A/167, EUR/A/169, EUR/LA/156, EUR/LA/157, PE/32/B, PE/34/B, PE/69/S, B/174-P, B/175-P, B/176-P, B/177-P, PE/133/C, PE/134/C, C/348, AST/1/2005 and AST/1/2006,

Having regard to the opinion of the Joint Committee issued at its meeting of 19 November 2008,

HAS DECIDED:

Article 1

The period of validity of the reserve lists for Open Competitions

| | PE/94/A, PE/95/A, PE/96/A, PE/97/A, PE/98/A, PE/99/A, PE/66/S, PE/67/S, PE/72/S, PE/80/S, |
| --- | --- |

PE/94/A, PE/95/A, PE/96/A, PE/97/A, PE/98/A, PE/99/A, PE/66/S, PE/67/S, PE/72/S, PE/80/S,

| | PE/91/S, A/94, A/95, A/96-P, A/97-P, |
| --- | --- |

PE/91/S, A/94, A/95, A/96-P, A/97-P,

| | EUR/A/167, EUR/A/169, |
| --- | --- |

EUR/A/167, EUR/A/169,

| | EUR/LA/156, EUR/LA/157, |
| --- | --- |

EUR/LA/156, EUR/LA/157,

| | PE/34/B, PE/69/S, B/174-P, B/175-P, B/176-P, B/177-P, |
| --- | --- |

PE/34/B, PE/69/S, B/174-P, B/175-P, B/176-P, B/177-P,

| | PE/133/C, PE/134/C, C/348, AST/1/2005 and AST/1/2006, |
| --- | --- |

PE/133/C, PE/134/C, C/348, AST/1/2005 and AST/1/2006,

shall be extended until 31 December 2009.

Article 2

The period of validity of the reserve lists for Open Competitions

| | PE/90/A, PE/91/A, PE/87/S, PE/88/S, PE/89/S, EUR/A/155, EUR/A/158, EUR/A/159, EUR/A/161, |
| --- | --- |

PE/90/A, PE/91/A, PE/87/S, PE/88/S, PE/89/S, EUR/A/155, EUR/A/158, EUR/A/159, EUR/A/161,

| | PE/32/B, |
| --- | --- |

PE/32/B,

shall not be extended.

Luxembourg, 8 December 2008.

The Secretary-General

Harald RØMER

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

INCENTIVE MARKETING, INC.,

d/b/a The Gator Shop, a Florida

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:09cv179-SPM/AK

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

an Arkansas corporation,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the Mediation Report (doc. 37), advising that this case has

settled, and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 16.2(D), it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

2. All pending motions are denied as moot.

2. The Court retains jurisdiction for a period of 60 days, during which

time any party may move to reopen for good cause shown.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of March, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
EX-10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 

THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN REDACTED AND IS THE SUBJECT OF A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST. REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED WITH [* * *] AND HAS
BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT 

This Fourth Amendment pertains to the License Agreement (hereinafter the “License Agreement”) effective August 11, 1997 by and between the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter M.I.T.) and ADVANCED INHALATION RESEARCH, INC. (hereinafter AIR), and to a Joint Invention Agreement by and between M.I.T. and the PENNSYLVANIA STATE RESEARCH FOUNDATION (hereinafter PSRF). 

WHEREAS, per Paragraph 6.1, Appendix B, attached hereto as a convenience, may be amended by mutual agreement of both parties. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree to modify the License Agreement as follows: 

Appendix B shall now state: 

Foreign countries in which PATENT RIGHTS shall be filed, prosecuted and maintained in accordance with Article 6: 

For M.I.T. Case Nos. [***] 

Designated States: Canada (CA), Japan (JP), European Patent Office (EPO)* 

For M.I.T. Case Nos. [***] 

Designated States: Canada (CA), Japan (JP), European Patent Office (EPO)* 

 

	*	European Patent Office (EPO) 

 Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Switzerland (CH), Germany (DE), 

Denmark (DK), Spain (ES), Finland (FI), France (FR), 

United Kingdom (GB), Greece (GR), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), 

Luxembourg (LU), Monaco (MC), Netherlands (NL), Portugal (PT) 

and Sweden (SE) 
  

									
	Agreed to for M.I.T. by:	 		 	Agreed to for A.I.R. by:
			
	MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY	 		 	ADVANCED INHALATION RESEARCH, INC.
					
	By	 	 /s/ Loris Pressman
	 		 	By	 	 /s/ David Edwards

	Name	 	 Loris Pressman
	 		 	Name	 	 David Edwards

	Title	 	 Assistant Director, Technology Licensing Office
	 		 	Title	 	 President

	Date	 	 January 28, 1999
	 		 	Date	 	 January 23, 1999










 THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN REDACTED AND IS THE SUBJECT OF A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
REQUEST. REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED WITH [* * *] AND HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 
  

 APPENDIX B 

DESIGNATED FOREIGN COUNTRIES 
 Foreign countries
in which PATENT RIGHTS shall be filed, prosecuted and maintained in accordance with Article 6: 
 For M.I.T. Case Nos. [***] 

Designated States: Canada (CA), Japan (JP), European Patent Office (EPO)* 

For M.I.T. Case Nos. [***] 
 Designated States: Canada (CA),
Japan (JP), European Patent Office (EPO)* 
  

	*	European Patent Office (EPO) 

 Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Switzerland (CH), Germany (DE), 

Denmark (DK), Spain (ES), Finland (FI), France (FR), 

United Kingdom (GB), Greece (GR), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), 

Luxembourg (LU), Monaco (MC), Netherlands (NL), Portugal (PT) 

and Sweden (SE)
# C_2010253EN.01000101.xml

| 21.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 September 2010

2010/C 253/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3074 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4474 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83830 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1780 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3160 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9540 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,675 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 281,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7091 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9483 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2640 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9562 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3826 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3487 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1527 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7937 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7434 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 518,87 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3300 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,7783 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2843 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 737,59 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0569 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,576 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,5500 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,203 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2406 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7020 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 59,7650 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3074

JPY

Japanese yen

112,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4474

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83830

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1780

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3160

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9540

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,675

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

281,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7091

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9483

RON

Romanian leu

4,2640

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9562

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3826

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3487

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1527

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7937

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7434

KRW

South Korean won

1 518,87

ZAR

South African rand

9,3300

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,7783

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2843

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 737,59

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0569

PHP

Philippine peso

57,576

RUB

Russian rouble

40,5500

THB

Thai baht

40,203

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2406

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7020

INR

Indian rupee

59,7650

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
_______________________________________ __ ________________ _______________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 12, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 130917(80) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices RANDALL L. ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 130917 v COA: 262167 Macomb CC: 2004-001913-CK AUTO CLUB GROUP, Defendant-Appellant.

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by defendant -appellant for extension to November 28, 2007 of the time for filing th eir reply brief is considered and it is GRANTED.

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.

December 12, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 32.01

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Macrovision Solutions
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Alfred J. Amoroso certifies in his capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that to the best of his knowledge:

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)),
and

(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as of May 7, 2008.



/s/ Alfred J. AmorosoAlfred J. Amoroso Chief Executive
Officer
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Certifications

I, David Weisman, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Eagle Broadband, Inc.;

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;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b.   Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
          such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
          our supervision, to provided reasonable assurance regarding the
          reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
          statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
          accounting principles; and

     c.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions abut the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

     a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

     b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date October 11, 2004

/s/ David A. Weisman
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

March 29, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00065

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G

- V., A CHILD

, From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- PA

- 02802 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal from a trial court’s order terminating appellant mother’s and appellant father’s parental rights. Appellant mother, who is pro se on appeal, has filed her second motion for extension of time to file her brief. After we granted appellant mother an initial ten

- day extension, her brief is due April 2, 2018. She has now requested an additional ten days f rom that date in which to file her brief. After review, we GRANT appellant mother’s motion and ORDER her to file her brief in this court on or before April 12, 2018.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appe llant mother and all counsel

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barna rd, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of March, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. H OTTLE

, Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ALL POINTS CAPITAL CORP.,

a foreign corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-116/RS-EMT

BOYD BROTHERS, INC., a 

Florida corporation, et al., 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me are Plaintiff Motion to Strike Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 18) and 

Defendants’ Response (Doc. 30). 

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury for suits at common law. 

U.S. Const. amend VII. However, parties to a contract may validly waive the right to a 

jury trial where such waivers are knowing and voluntary. Bakrac, Inc. v. Villager 

Franchise Sys., 164 Fed. Appx. 820, 823 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). In making this 

assessment, the court will consider the conspicuousness of the waiver provision, the 

parties’ relative bargaining power, the sophistication of the party challenging the waiver, 

and whether the terms of the contract were negotiable. Id. at 824. The circuits are split 

as to which party has the burden of proving whether a contractual jury trial waiver was 

knowing and voluntary. The Eleventh Circuit has not decided the issue. Id. at 824, n.1. 

Case 5:11-cv-00116-MW-EMT Document 31 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 2
At this stage of the case, the issues and facts have yet to be fully developed in the 

record. I will be better able to analyze whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary at 

a later stage of the case when the issue has been fully developed. 

The Motion to Strike Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 18) is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

ORDERED on July 7, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00116-MW-EMT Document 31 Filed 07/07/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10959

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TREMON TRAVELL BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CR-94-18

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tremon Travell Brown, federal prisoner # 28757-177, appeals the denial

of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. Brown pleaded guilty

to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50

grams of cocaine base, and he was sentenced to 293 months of imprisonment and

five years of supervised release. He contends that he is eligible for a sentence

reduction under Amendment 750, which implemented the Fair Sentencing Act

of 2010 (FSA) and revised the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to offenses

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 21, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-10959 Document: 00512283100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2013
No. 12-10959

involving cocaine base. Brown has filed a motion for leave to file an out-of-time

reply brief, and that motion is granted.

We review the district court’s resolution of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for an

abuse of discretion. United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293, 295-96 (5th Cir.

2009). Brown argues that, when considering whether to afford him relief, the

district court erred in considering his three post-conviction disciplinary

infractions because it had considered those infractions when it denied an earlier

filed motion for relief under § 3582(c)(2). The court was allowed to consider

those infractions. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(iii)); United States

v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010).

Brown’s contention that he is entitled to a reduction in light of the FSA,

which took effect after he was sentenced, is without merit. See Dorsey v. United

States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2335-36 (2012); United States v. Doggins, 633 F.3d 379,

384 (5th Cir. 2011).

The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to Brown’s

motion as a whole and that it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

Accordingly, the denial of Brown’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was not an abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-10959 Document: 00512283100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2013
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                        0001023877
<NAME>                                      Goung Hei Investment Co., Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                                      US Dollars

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              DEC-31-1991
<PERIOD-START>                                                 JAN-01-1991
<PERIOD-END>                                                   DEC-31-1991
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                          1
<CASH>                                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         0
<PP&E>                                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          44
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    0
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                                17
<OTHER-SE>                                                              27
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            44
<SALES>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         0
<CGS>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           28
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       (28)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   (28)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          (28)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            0



</TABLE>
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 2 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 3 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 4 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 5 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 6 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 7 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 8 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 9 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00140-MCR-CJK Document 1 Filed 03/23/11 Page 10 of 10
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

228 TP 13-01661 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY BOTTOM, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (NORMAN P. EFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H. Dadd, A.J.], entered September 16, 2013) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court