alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andres De La Rosa, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered August 5, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 574/86, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Rohl, J.), rendered October 21, 1987, convicting him of bail jumping in the first degree under indictment No. 32/87, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant claims that the court erred in admitting the expert’s testimony that the substance the undercover officer purchased from the defendant was cocaine. The evidence was inadmissible, he argues, because there was no independent evidence of the known samples which the expert employed in determining that the substance was cocaine.

This claim has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, the claim is meritless. Generally, the failure to establish the accuracy of the so-called "known standard” as a reliable norm requires the conclusion that a proper foundation has not been laid for an expert’s analysis that the substance is cocaine, thereby rendering that testimony incompetent and inadmissible *(see, People v Wicks,*122 AD2d 239; *People v Branton,*67 AD2d 664; *People v Miller,*57 AD2d 668). However, this court has repeatedly held that where the expert’s testimony is premised in part upon tests that do not employ a known standard, the testimony is admissible *(see, People v Hushie,*145 AD2d 506; *People v Flores,*138 AD2d 512; *People v Gonzalez, 127*AD2d 787; *People v Wicks, supra).*Because the expert in the instant case relied in part upon tests that did not employ a known standard, his testimony was properly admitted.

*699We also reject the defendant’s claim that the prosecution should have been required to call the confidential informant as its own witness. It is well settled that a prosecutor need not call a witness, "even an eyewitness, whose testimony his own investigation convinces him would be unreliable, cumulative or irrelevant” *(People v Andre W.,*44 NY2d 179, 184; *see also, People v Sapia,*41 NY2d 160, 163, *cert denied*434 US 823; *People v Stridiron,*33 NY2d 287, 292; *People v Pollak,*130 AD2d 911).

Further, we find that the court properly declined to charge the jury with the agency defense, as no reasonable view of the evidence supported such a charge *(see, People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, *cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York,*439 US 930; *People v Miano,*143 AD2d 777; *People v Cierzniewski,*141 AD2d 828).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Hooper, Fiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10881

Summary Calendar

THOMAS E. CRAIG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(3:97-CV-1533-D)

February 24, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Thomas Craig (“Craig”) brought action against his

former employer, Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (“Ryder”) for disability

discrimination in violation of his rights under the Americans With

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

Craig further sought action against Ryder for intentional

infliction of emotional distress. The United States District Court
2

for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted

summary judgment in favor of Ryder. The district court also denied

Craig's motion for leave to file amended response. Craig now

appeals. We affirm.

In 1977, Ryder hired Craig to work at its facility in Oxnard,

California. In the Fall of 1995, Craig accepted a position at

Ryder's facility in Lewisville, Texas and transferred to Texas.

Craig, however, did not report to work in Lewisville, claiming he

suffered from depression. Ryder ultimately terminated Craig's

employment in December, 1995.

Craig asserts the district court abused its discretion by

excluding proffered summary judgment evidence. We disagree. The

district court considered Craig's evidence and found it

insufficient to meet his burden to avoid summary judgment. 

Craig also asserts the district court abused its discretion

when it denied Craig's Motion for Leave to File Amended Response.

A district court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to

consider evidence submitted in a post-judgment motion after the

entry of summary judgment. See Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80

F.3d 1042, 1052 (5th Cir. 1996). In addition, Craig has not

offered any explanation or excuse for failing to present sufficient

evidence prior to the district court's ruling. See id. The

district court did not abuse its discretion. 

We find no merit in Craig's claims that the district court

abused its discretion in: (1) excluding evidence and (2) denying

Craig's Motion for Leave to File Amended Response. For the
3

foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated February 26, 1999, except for Note 21, as to which
the date is March 23, 1999, included in NFO Worldwide, Inc.'s annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998, into the Company's previously
filed Registration Statements, File Nos. 33-73516, 33-83002, 33-91936,
333-24297, 333-24299, 333-38497, 333-51929, and 333-58067.


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
-----------------------
New York, New York,
March 29, 1999.

                                       158
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18400-18401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8794]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-296-000]


Paiute Pipeline Co.; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

April 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 3, 1995, Paiute Pipeline Company 
(Paiute), P.O. Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-4197, filed in Docket 
No. CP95-296-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.216 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.216) for authorization to abandon certain miscellaneous tap and/or 
metering facilities and the service rendered by means thereof, under 
Paiute's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP84-739-000 pursuant 
to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with [[Page 18401]] the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Paiute proposes to abandon a number of tap and/or metering 
facilities formerly used to provide deliveries to Southwest Gas 
Corporation-Northern Nevada (Southwest). All the facilities are located 
in Nevada. Paiute states that it has been informed by Southwest that 
the subject facilities are no longer used or needed to provide service 
to Southwest.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8794 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Carlton Wayne MITCHELL, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 56782.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 30, 1990.

*508Gregory C. Wells, Columbia, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Ronald L. Jurgeson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### Trustees of Harry M. Kelly Grantor Trust No. 2, as Substitute for Carmen D. Kelly, Respondent, v Model Railroad Equipment Corp. et al., Appellants.

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on December 11, 1989, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Burton Sherman, J. Respondent shall recover of appellants $250 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Carl ARMSTRONG, Defendant/Appellant. Carl ARMSTRONG, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 66823, 68881.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 9, 1996.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after, he was convicted following a bench trial of one count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo Supp.1993. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Defendant addresses no points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief; that appeal is considered abandoned. *See State v. Nelson,*818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gregory ANDERSON, Appellant. Gregory ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 65704, 68231.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

April 2, 1996.

John M. Schilmoeller, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury on two counts of second-degree burglary in violation of § 569.170 RSMo, 1994. Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender and as a class X offender to twenty years imprisonment on each of the two counts, to be served concurrently.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error regarding defendant’s conviction to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. However, he did not brief this appeal. Accordingly, defendant has abandoned his 29.15 appeal and that appeal is dismissed. *State v. Vinson,*834 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Mo.App.1992).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1254

DONALD N. REAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. SHAWN OLIVER; CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-98-2683-22-4) Submitted: July 31, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald N. Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Kathy Jane Price Elmore, Florence, South Carolina; Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Donald N. Reaves appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Reaves v. Oliver , No. CA-98-2683-22-4 (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2000). 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
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Allied Pacific Builders ) ASBCA No. 63452

)

Under Contract No. N62478

- 20

- D

- 4033 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. William Alicar

President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

David M. Marquez, Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 2 4 , 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63452

, Appeal of Allied Pacific

Builders , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 25, 2023 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting C hairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5509 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5509

To modernize permitting systems at the Department of the Interior, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2023

Ms. Porter (for herself and Mr. LaMalfa) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modernize permitting systems at the Department of the Interior, 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 ``Electronic Permitting Modernization 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PERMIT ACCESSIBILITY.

    In order to improve the overall economy, efficiency, and management 
of operations and activities of the Department of the Interior 
(referred to in this section as the ``Department''), reduce paperwork, 
and provide high-quality services and access to the public, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall, to the extent practicable--
            (1) design and deliver modernized electronic permitting 
        systems to accept, process, and record applications (including 
        plan submissions, payment activity, and other related 
        correspondence) for permits, forms, and other paperwork 
        required for activities regulated by the Department;
            (2) provide a centralized electronic permitting system 
        online repository, available to the public on the Department's 
        website, that includes--
                    (A) hyperlinks to facilitate navigation to all 
                Department electronic permitting systems; and
                    (B) with respect to permits, the contact 
                information for the appropriate Department employees 
                providing assistance to State, Tribal, and local 
                governments; and
            (3) provide to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
        Natural Resources of the Senate periodic updates on the 
        implementation of paragraphs (1) and (2).
                                 <all>
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5789

Tianhai Electric North America:

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
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00912-CV

KAREN KRISTINE SILVIO, Appellant

V.

BIRNAM WOOD-FAIRFAX HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1046607

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed October 13, 2014. On December 16, 

2014, this court abated the appeal because appellant petitioned for voluntary 

bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of 

Texas, under cause number 14-36744. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. 
2

Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, 

the court has learned that the bankruptcy case was closed. The parties failed to 

advise this court of the bankruptcy court action.

On February 27, 2020, this court issued an order stating that unless any party 

to the appeal filed a motion demonstrating good cause to retain the appeal within 

twenty days of the date of the order, this appeal would be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No response was filed. 

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and order it dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
Exhibit 10.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Stolt Offshore S.A. (a Luxembourg company) and its subsidiaries' ("the Company") Registration Statements on
Form S-8, File Nos. 33-85168, 333-09292 and 333-74321 and on Form S-3, File No. 333-86288 of our report
dated April 1, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the year ended November 30, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the application of procedures relating to certain disclosures and reclassifications of financial statement amounts related to the 2001 and 2000 financial
statements that were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of assurance other than with respect to such disclosures and
reclassifications) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended November 30, 2002.



Glasgow,
United Kingdom
June 2, 2003

---

QuickLinks
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131320 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131320 COA: 265466 Genesee CC: 03-011303-FC TOM TRAINI, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 11, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1023 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.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>        0001006918
<NAME>       TRUMP ATLANTIC CITY FUNDING,INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,500
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,222,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,500
<BONDS>                                      1,200,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,222,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,250
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
         

</TABLE>