alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Joseph Correia, Petitioner, v Incorporated Village of Northport et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 438]

*552Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Board of Trustees for the Incorporated Village of Northport dated October 2, 2003, which adopted a finding of three designated trustees, made after a de novo review of the petitioner’s disciplinary hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, and terminated his employment with the Incorporated Village of Northport.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, with costs, to the extent that the determination is annulled, the petition is otherwise denied, and the matter is remitted to the Incorporated Village of Northport and the Board of Trustees for the Incorporated Village of Northport for a de novo determination made upon the original hearing record by an impartial person designated by the Mayor of the Incorporated Village of North-port who was not involved in the hearing of the disciplinary charges against the petitioner.

Since the Board of Trustees for the Incorporated Village of Northport (hereinafter the Board of Trustees), not the Mayor of the Incorporated Village of Northport (hereinafter the Village), designated the individuals to make a de novo determination upon the original hearing record, the Board of Trustees failed to comply with this Court’s prior directive as well as the rule of law as set forth in *Matter of Correia v Incorporated Vil. of Northport*(12 AD3d 599 [2004]). Accordingly, we once again remit the matter to the Village and the Board of Trustees for a de novo determination made upon the original hearing record by an impartial person designated by the Mayor of the Village who was not involved in the hearing of the disciplinary charges against the petitioner.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the petitioner’s remaining contentions. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02257-MJW

JAMES F. BLUM,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

TOM CLEMENTS, in his official capacity as Executive Director of Colorado Department

of Corrections;

TRAVIS TRANI, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of Colorado

Department of Corrections;

ANTHONY A. DeCESARO, grievance officer, Colorado Department of Corrections,

individually and in his official capacity;

LEE ROMANSKI, a member of the sex offender treatment team at Arrowhead

Correctional Facility, individually and in her official capacity;

DANIEL CLAUS, individually and in his official capacity;

S. MICHAEL DUNLAP, individually and in his official capacity;

BURL McCULLAR, individually and in his official capacity;

MARGARET HEIL, individually and in her official capacity;

DAVID TESSIER, individually and in his official capacity;

J.D. SCOLLARD, individually and in his official capacity;

CHRISTINE TYLER, individually and in her official capacity;

DANA KRAKOW, individually and in her official capacity;

BONNIE CANTU, individually and in her official capacity;

CHRISTINA MARQUEZ, individually and in her official capacity;

JENNIFER MARTINEZ, individually and in her official capacity;

LEONARD WOODSON, individually and in his official capacity; and

BRIAN KOCH, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ unopposed Motion for Leave to

Depose Plaintiff (Docket No. 73) is granted. Defendants are granted leave to depose

plaintiff James F. Blum, who is a person confined in prison.

Date: February 1, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02257-MJW Document 74 Filed 02/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 85

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 23, 2007.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Wexler (to 

rank immediately after Mr. Donnelly). 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Ms. Wasserman 

Schultz (to rank immediately after Mr. Davis of Alabama). 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Mr. Kanjorski (to rank immediately after Mr. McNerney) and Ms. 

Hooley (to rank immediately after Mr. Kanjorski). 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Ms. MillenderMcDonald, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. 

Larsen of Washington, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Bean, 

Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. 
2

•HRES 85 EH 

Altmire, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. 

Johnson of Georgia, and Mr. Sestak. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### In the Matter of Fermin Flores, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 447]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered July 11, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

As the result of his involvement in the robbery and shooting of an off-duty transit police officer, petitioner was convicted of attempted murder in the first degree and criminal possession of *865a weapon in the second degree. He was sentenced, respectively, to concurrent prison terms of 15 years to life and 5 to 20 years. He made his first appearance before the Board of Parole in February 2004 at which time his request for release on parole was denied. After this decision was affirmed on administrative appeal, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

Petitioner’s sole contention on appeal is that the Board relied upon inaccurate factual information in denying his request. He points specifically to a statement made by one of the Commissioners during the hearing indicating that the robbery victim was shot three times. We find petitioner’s argument to be unpersuasive. The Commissioner’s misstatement was promptly corrected on the record by another Commissioner who indicated that three shots were fired, with one striking the victim. In addition, the inmate status report, containing an accurate description of the incident, was read into the record at the hearing. In view of this, and given that the Board considered the statutory factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i in making its decision, we do not find that the decision demonstrates “ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” such as to warrant annulment *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Robert Benjamin, 

et al. 

v. Case No. 08-cv-422-SM 

Vatche Manoukian, 

et al. 

ORDER 

Re: Document No. 154, Letter/Motion to Extend Time for 30 

days to Object/Respond to [152] MOTION for Judgment. 

Ruling: Denied. While not ripe, there is a pending motion 

(Doc. no. 152) seeking entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff on 

an apparent claim that defendants have breached the settlement 

agreement. This case was dismissed with prejudice by reason of 

settlement, and pursuant to Local Rule 41.1. The case is closed. 

Federal courts lack inherent power to enforce settlements of 

federal litigation. The settlement agreement was not incorporated 

into the dismissal order and the court did not retain jurisdiction 

to enforce the settlement. Accordingly, enforcement of the 

settlement’s terms in the event of a breach must be pursued in a 

separate action. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S. 

375 (1994); Municipality of San Juan v. Rullan, 318 F.3d 26 (1st 

Cir. 2003). That motion is denied as well. 

lief Judge 

Date: September 30, 2011 

cc: Jay Friedrich, Esq. 

Jeffery A. Zall, Esq. 

Vanuche Manukian, pro se 

Linda Haytayan, pro se 

Case 1:08-cv-00422-SM Document 157 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 1
---

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Section B
Selected Statistics from the Quarterly Reports of Condition of Commercial Banks   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|
|B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks                                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                 
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks         
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                     
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks             
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            
|
|B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                                                
|B.8. Average Loan-Deposit Ratios at Agricultural Banks in Selected Federal Reserve Districts
|ASCII (10 KB)                                                                               
|B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures                                                   
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: March 09, 2009
198 La. 732

#### WOODS MFG. CO. v. SOUTHERN SALES CO., Inc.

No. 36375.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 3, 1941.

Chandler & Chandler and H. M. Holder, all of Shreveport, for appellant.

Cook, Cook & Egan and Albert T. Hughes, Jr., all of Shreveport, for appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

This case is before us on appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal taken from the judgment of the lower court dismissing proceedings instituted by his (appellee’s) co-receiver to liquidate the affairs of the Southern Sales Company, Inc., in receivership, to which proceedings the appellee was made a party defendant.

The affairs of the Southern Sales Company, Inc., have been in receivership since February 13, 1932, being administered up until February 10, 1938, by James S. Mc-Conathy, now deceased. From February 15, 1938, they have been administered by William R. Bledsoe (the appellant) and J. S. McConathy, Jr. (the appellee), as co-receivers. On May 31, 1941, Bledsoe applied to the court for an order directing and authorizing the co-receivers to cease the operation of the business as a going concern and proceed with the liquidation of its affairs, praying that a rule be served on his co-receiver (McConathy) to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted, McConathy having refused to join in the application and recommendation. An opposition to the application was filed by ten of the corporation’s creditors. The trial judge ex proprio motu removed the co-receivers and appointed a new receiver in their stead on June 18, 1941, and, subsequently, on June 23, recalled and dismissed the rule taken by Bledsoe against McConathy on May 31, 1941, wherein the liquidation of the business was sought. Bledsoe has appealed from that judgment as a stockholder of the corporation.

The basis of appellee’s motion is that the appeal presents a moot question for “a judgment in favor of the appellant would be ineffective and a vain thing, because neither of the parties to this appeal has any authority or power since his or their removal, to liquidate or otherwise deal with the receivership and the assets of the receivership in the custody of the court.”

There is no merit to this contention. Bledsoe’s primary purpose in taking the rule was to have the affairs of the corporation liquidated; the fact that McConathy was made a party defendant was only incidental to the principal demand. Whether or not Bledsoe and McConathy have been removed as co-receivers, necessitating the administering of the affairs of the corporation by a receiver other than either the appellant or the appellee,'is of no moment,' for Bledsoe has appealed as a stockholder of the corporation and, as such, he has an interest in seeing that its affairs are liquidated. In re Geddes Undertaking & Embalming Company, 188 La. 366, 177 So. 240. This interest gives him a right of appeal. See Article 571 of the Code of Practice and Succession of Burg, 194 La. 985, 195 So. 513.

*812For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

ROGERS, J., dissents, being of the opinion that the appeal presents only a moot question.
*Release Date: June 30, 2005*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
```

| Year | Estimated volume (billions of dollars) | Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent) |
|------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
||
| 10   | 1                                      | 1                                                     | 3 | 6 | .048 | .003 | .003 | .013 | .026 |
| 12   | 0                                      | 3                                                     | 6 | 4 | .055 | -.001 | .011 | .027 | .016 |
| 7    | 0                                      | 1                                                     | 2 | 4 | .031 | .000 | .003 | .009 | .017 |
| 16   | -1                                     | 0                                                     | 3 | 14 | .064 | -.003 | -.001 | .010 | .054 |
| 6    | -1                                     | 3                                                     | 0 | 5 | .022 | -.004 | .009 | .000 | .016 |
| 15   | 0                                      | 3                                                     | 5 | 7 | .051 | -.001 | .011 | .015 | .022 |
| 12   | -12                                    | 3                                                     | 8 | 14 | .037 | -.037 | .009 | .022 | .040 |
| 42   | 10                                     | 9                                                     | 5 | 17 | .123 | .030 | .027 | .014 | .049 |
| 35   | 8                                      | 6                                                     | 5 | 16 | .097 | .022 | .017 | .014 | .041 |
| 32   | 4                                      | 6                                                     | 8 | 14 | .082 | .010 | .015 | .021 | .034 |
| 18   | 1                                      | 5                                                     | 2 | 10 | .044 | .003 | .012 | .005 | .021 |
| n.a. | 2                                      | n.a.                                                  | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | .005 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
```
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-96-PB

Anthony Sawyer

 O R D E R

Counsel has moved to reconsider the denial of the motion to

continue the trial scheduled for January 5, 2010. Counsel

represents in his motion for reconsideration that the case with

which he has a conflict is older than this case. Counsel further

represents that his client desires a bench trial and that counsel

will be ready for trial upon completion of his state court case. 

Based on these representations, I will grant the motion (Doc. No.

36). In so doing, I find pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(7)(A)

that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in

granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

The clerk shall consult with counsel and set the case for a

bench trial on a date in January to be agreed upon by the

parties. Defense counsel is warned that the court expects to be

Case 1:08-cr-00096-PB Document 37 Filed 12/29/09 Page 1 of 2
notified of trial conflicts when a motion to continue is filed. 

I will not tolerate similar conduct from counsel in the future. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 29, 2009

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

2

Case 1:08-cr-00096-PB Document 37 Filed 12/29/09 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02257-MSK-MJW

JAMES F. BLUM,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

TOM CLEMENTS, in his official capacity as Executve Director of Colorado Department

of Corrections;

TRAVIS TRANI, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of Colorado

Department of Corrections;

ANTHONY A. DeCESARO, grievance officer, Colorado Department of Corrections,

individually and in his official capacity;

LEE ROMANSKI, a member of the sex offender treatment team at Arrowhead

Correctional Facility, individually and in her official capacity;

DANIEL CLAUS, individually and in his official capacity;

S. MICHAEL DUNLAP, individually and in his official capacity;

BURL McCULLAR, individually and in his official capacity;

MARGARET HEIL, individually and in her official capacity;

DAVID TESSIER, individually and in his official capacity;

J.D. SCOLLARD, individually and in his official capacity;

CHRISTINE TYLER, individually and in her official capacity;

DANA KRAKOW, individually and in her official capacity;

BONNIE CANTU, individually and in her official capacity;

CHRISTINA MARQUEZ, individually and in her official capacity;

JENNIFER MARTINEZ, individually and in her official capacity;

LEONARD WOODSON, individually and in his official capacity; and

BRIAN KOCH, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court

should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

“Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a showing of undue delay,

undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.” Frank v.

U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

Case 1:11-cv-02257-MSK-MJW Document 45 Filed 11/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to File Second

Amended Complaint (docket no. 39) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the subject

motion and in the interest of justice as outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Second

Amended Complaint (docket no. 39-1) is accepted for filing as of the date of this minute

order. As to any argument by Defendants concerning futility, Judge Ebel has previously

addressed that issue in the case of General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Steel Wise,

LLC, 2008 WL 2520423 (D. Colo. 2008). In the General Steel case, Judge Ebel stated,

in pertinent part: “... Defendants’ futility argument seems to place the cart before the

horse. Rather than force a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 15(a) opposition brief, the

defendants may be better served by waiting to assert Rule 12 motions until the

operative complaint is in place.” 

 

Date: November 29, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02257-MSK-MJW Document 45 Filed 11/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Amendment No. 2 to License No. 23071 (registration series A 022574)



 Exhibit 4.15.2 
  
 Amendment No. 2 
 to License No. 23071 (registration series A 022574) 
 dated August 1, 2002 
  
 To amend clause 8 of the Conditions For Carrying Out Activities Under License No. 23071 to
read as follows: 
  
 “8. Data transmission services shall be provided to the
users of the cellular mobile communications network and of the data transmission networks of OJSC “Vimpelcom-Region”. 
  

					
	 First Deputy Minister
 of the Russian
Federation for
 Telecommunications and
 Information
Technologies
	    	 /Signature
	    	B.D. Antonyuk
			
	 	    	 /seal/
	    	 December 30, 2003

			
	 Deputy Head of the Department
 of the
Organization
 of Licensing Activity
	    	 /Signature/
	    	B.V. Vorobyev
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Arnoldo RIOS-BARBOZA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10377.

D.C. No. CR-02-000002-DWH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Amoldo Rios-Barboza appeals his conviction by guilty plea and sentence for unlawful reentry by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rios-Barboza contends that his sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U. S.C. § 1326(a) violates the due process requirement articulated in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, *747147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in that elements necessary to impose the enhanced sentence — the fact that an alien has been removed and suffered an aggravated felony before removal — were neither pled in the indictment nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Acknowledging that this court has rejected his argument, *see United States v. Castillo-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1020, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2001) (rejecting contention that Apprendi’s recidivism exception is somehow inapplicable to an aggravated felony enhancement under § 1326 because removal must have been *subsequent*to an aggravated felony conviction), Rios-Barboza states that he raises the issue in order to preserve it in the event the Supreme Court overrules contrary authority-

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.