alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert F. HOLLARS, Appellant. Robert HOLLARS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47501.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 9, 1995.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction, after trial by jury, of sodomy and the denial of appellant’s Rule 29.15 postconviction motion.

Judgment affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### In the Matter of John Sullivan, Petitioner, v City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent.

Petition, pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pécora, J.), entered May 4, 1989, unanimously dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development dated October 21, 1988, which found petitioner guilty of four charges arising from his offering, for a fee, to assist a private community organization to obtain grant funds and imposed the penalty of dismissal, confirmed.

Petitioner, while employed as an assistant architect with respondent Department, was charged with using his position, in return for payment of a fee, to assist a community organization in obtaining grant moneys. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found petitioner guilty as follows:

”1. That while employed as an Assistant Architect with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development you simultaneously engaged in private employment as a consultant. Your consultant activities constituted an abuse of your position and violated Section 2604 C (1) and (2) of the New York City Charter, which is more fully set forth in exhibit A, annexed hereto and made a part here of *[sic].*

"2. That while employed as aforesaid, and in violation of the aforementioned sections of New York City Charter, you contacted a private citizen who had submitted a contract proposal to an agency of the City of New York. You offered to assist *148this private citizen to obtain the contract in exchange for fees totalling $600 plus 10% of the contract price should the contract be awarded.

”3. That as a result of your activities set forth in Specifications One (1) and Two (2) above, you violated the Rules and Regulations for employees of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development in that you solicited from a private citizen monetary benefit for violating your duties as an employee.

"4. That you further violated the Rules and Regulations for employees of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development in that you failed to notify the Personnel Officer of the agency, in writing, of your outside employment as set forth in Specification One (1) above.”

Petitioner’s sole contention on appeal is that the penalty of dismissal was excessive. The standard of review in article 78 proceedings is whether the penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to the court’s sense of fairness *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d *222; Matter of McAvoy v Ward,*145 AD2d 378, 381, *Iv denied*74 NY2d 606). Petitioner’s infraction involved a breach of trust for which termination has been held appropriate *(Matter of Chilson v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5394

SGRE, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6612

Alps Electric (North America), Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### In re MARRIAGE OF Kathleen MILLS and Robert Mills. Kathleen MILLS, Petitioner/Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Robert MILLS, Respondent/Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

Nos. 66899, 67107.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Oct. 24, 1995.

Susan M. Hais, Hais & Carmody, P.C., St. Louis, for Kathleen Mills.

Michael C. Walther, Walther & Roberts, Clayton, Rochelle A. Kaskowitz, St. Louis, for Robert Mills.

Before CRANE, C.J., SIMON, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Both parties appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a dissolution ease. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for *189their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
***Exhibit      32.1***

**Certification****Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

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

| 2. | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Handheld                Entertainment, Inc. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                      |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| **By:                     /s/ JEFF OSCODAR**                                         |   |        |
| Jeff                    OscodarPresident                    & Chief Executive Officer |        |

|                                                                                                                                                     |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| **By:                         /s/****WILLIAM                        J. BUSH**                                                                       |   |        |
| William                        J. BushChief                        Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting                        Officer) |        |

* A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other      document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature      that      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement      required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained      by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its      staff upon request.*

----
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**523 CAF 13-01536** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES L. HIGGINS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JESSE M. HIGGINS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

CHARLES L. HIGGINS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT PRO SE.

PETER M. CASEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BATAVIA.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered August 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, awarded petitioner primary physical placement of the subject children.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, insofar as appealed from, awarded petitioner father primary physical placement of the subject children. The mother contends that Family Court erred in determining that there was the requisite showing of a change in circumstances to warrant modification of the existing custody arrangement. We reject that contention. “ ‘It is well established that alteration of an established custody arrangement will be ordered only upon a showing of a change in circumstances which reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child[ren]’ ” ( Amy L.M. v Kevin M.M. , 31 AD3d 1224, 1225). Here, the father established the requisite change in circumstances by showing that the mother’s residence “had become a ‘harried and chaotic environment’ that did not provide the subject children with the focused attention and structure they needed” ( Matter of Graziani C.A. [Lisa A.] , 117 AD3d 729, 730). Contrary to the mother’s further contention, we conclude that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the court’s determination that it was in the children’s best interests to award primary physical placement to the father ( see Matter of Marino v Marino , 90 AD3d 1694, 1695-1696; see also Matter of Tarrant v Ostrowski , 96 AD3d 1580, 1582, lv denied 20 NY3d 855). Considering that “a court’s determination regarding custody . . . issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled**-2- 523 CAF 13-01536** 

to great weight” ( Marino , 90 AD3d at 1695 [internal quotation marks omitted]), we perceive no basis upon which to set aside the court’s award of primary physical placement of the children to the father.

Finally, we reject the mother’s contention that she was deprived of a fair hearing because the court improperly admitted hearsay statements in evidence. Any error is harmless inasmuch as the court placed minimal, if any, reliance on those hearsay statements, and the evidence is otherwise sufficient to support the court’s determination ( see Matter of Tracy v Tracy , 309 AD2d 1252, 1253; Matter of Jelenic v Jelenic , 262 AD2d 676, 678; Matter of Liza C. v Noel C. , 207 AD2d 974, 974).

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Cite as 2015 Ark. 11

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS ACCESS

TO JUSTICE COMMISSION

Opinion Delivered January 15, 2015

PER CURIAM

Justice Robin Wynne, Arkansas Supreme Court, is appointed to the Arkansas Access

to Justice Commission for a three-year term to expire on October 15, 2017. Hon. Robert

McCallum, circuit judge, of Arkadelphia, is appointed to the Arkansas Access to Justice

Commission to fill the unexpired term of Judge Leon Jamison. This term expires on October

15, 2016. We thank them for their willingness to serve on this important commission. 

We express our gratitude to Judge Jamison and Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck for their

years of dedicated service to the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7498

General Motors:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9831]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration


National High-Speed Ground Transportation Policy Outreach 
Meetings

Agency: Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad 
Development, DOT.

Action: Chicago, Illinois Public Meeting Postponed.

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

Summary: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will hold regional 
public outreach meetings around the United States to invite public 
input for developing the National High Speed Ground Transportation 
(HSGT) Policy, as mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act. The public is invited to attend and/or submit written 
comments. The first meeting which was scheduled to be held April 20, 
1995 in Chicago, Illinois has been rescheduled for June 1, 1995.

Dates: Due to this change in dates, we have extended the time during 
which written comments will be accepted until June 9, 1995. Comments 
should be submitted by mail to the address below and will be accepted 
in person at each meeting.
    The Chicago session will take place as follows:

DATE: June 1, 1995.

PLACE: The Westin Hotel Chicago, Oxford Ballroom, 909 North Michigan 
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611, (312) 649-6439.

TIME: 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

LOCAL CONTACT: Merrill Travis, IDOT, (217) 782-2835.

Addresses: All written statements should be submitted to: Honorable 
Jolene M. Molitoris, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8206, Washington, D.C. 20590, Attn.: 
HSGT Policy.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 13, 1995.
Donald M. Itzkoff,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-9831 Filed 4-17-95; 2:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6386

Alps Electric (North America), Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY B. ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 03-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY B. ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Ca rolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-95-178) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 20032 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony B. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Tony B. Alexander appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Alexander’s motion for modification of his sentence and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeUnited States v. Alexander , No. CR-95- 178 (W.D.N.C., filed Jan. 17, 2003; entered Jan. 21, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF STATION CASINOS, INC.

Palace
Station Hotel & Casino, Inc.
Boulder Station, Inc.
Texas Station, LLC
Sunset Station, Inc.
Santa Fe Station, Inc.
Fiesta Station, Inc.
Rancho Station, LLC
Lake Mead Station, Inc.
Tropicana Station, Inc.
Charleston Station, LLC
Magic Star Station, LLC
Gold Rush Station, LLC
LML Station, LLC
Palms Station, LLC:
    Fiesta Palms, LLC (6.7% ownership)
    Palms Place, LLC (6.7% ownership)
    Palms Place II, LLC (6.7% ownership)
Green Valley Station, Inc.:
    Town Center Amusements, Inc., A Limited Liability Company d/b/a Barley's Casino & Brewing
        Company (50% ownership)
    Greens Café, LLC d/b/a The Greens (50% ownership)
    Sunset GV, LLC (50% ownership)
GV Ranch Station, Inc.:
    Green Valley Ranch Gaming, LLC (50% ownership)
Aliante Station, LLC:
    Aliante Holding, LLC (50% ownership):
                Aliante Gaming, LLC
                Losee Elkhorn Properties, LLC
River Central, LLC
Durango Station, Inc.
SC Durango Development, LLC:
                Durango Station Retail, LLC (50% ownership)
Inspirada Station, LLC
FCP Mezzco Parent, LLC:
    FCP Mezzco Parent Sub, LLC:
                FCP Mezzco Borrower VII, LLC:
                                FCP MezzCo Borrower VI, LLC:
                                         
       FCP MezzCo Borrower V, LLC:
                                         
                       FCP MezzCo Borrower IV, LLC:
                                         
                                       FCP MezzCo Borrower
III, LLC:
                                         
                                          
             FCP MezzCo Borrower II, LLC:
                                         
                                          
                             FCP Mezzco Borrower I, LLC:
                                         
                                          
                                          
   FCP PropCo, LLC
CV HoldCo, LLC:
    CV PropCo, LLC
SC Rancho Development, LLC
Station Holdings, Inc:
    Town Center Station, LLC
Vista Holdings, LLC
Centerline Holdings, LLC

---



Station
California, LLC
Station Development, LLC
Station Construction, LLC
Northern NV Acquisitions, LLC
Reno Land Holdings, LLC
Tropicana Acquisitions, LLC
Auburn Development, LLC
SC Butte Development, LLC
SC Butte Management, LLC
SC Sonoma Development, LLC
SC Sonoma Resort Management, LLC
SC Sonoma Alliance, LLC
SC Sonoma Land Holdings, LLC
Sonoma Land Acquisition Company, LLC:
    SCI/CE Rohnert Park, LLC (50% ownership)
Fresno Land Acquisitions, LLC
SC Madera Development, LLC
SC Madera Management, LLC
SC Michigan, LLC:
    MPM Enterprises, LLC (50% ownership)
STN Aviation, Inc.
Tropicana Station, LLC
Past Enterprises, Inc.
Your Move, Inc. (75% ownership)

---



QuickLinks