alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**931 TP 14-00070**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF KEVIN MARKMAN, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GLADYS CARRION, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND KELLY A. REED, COMMISSIONER, MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, RESPONDENTS.

THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

MERIDETH H. SMITH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (PETER A. ESSLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT KELLY A. REED, COMMISSIONER, MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JULIE M. SHERIDAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT GLADYS CARRION, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES.

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, Monroe County [John J. Ark, J.], entered January 9, 2014) to review a determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. The determination denied petitioner’s application to amend the indicated report of maltreatment to an unfounded report.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination, made after a fair hearing, denying in part his request to amend an indicated report of maltreatment with respect to two of his children to an unfounded report, and to seal it ( see Social Services Law § 422 [8] [a] [v]; [c] [ii]). We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence and therefore decline to disturb it ( see Matter of Arbogast v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., Special Hearing Bur.
, 119 AD3d 1454, 1454-1455; Matter of Parker v Carrion , 90 AD3d 512, 512). Where, as here, hearsay evidence is “sufficiently relevant and probative,” it may constitute substantial evidence ( People ex rel. Vega v Smith , 66 NY2d 130, 139; see Matter of Bullock v State of N.Y. Dept. of Social Servs. , 248 AD2d 380, 382). The Administrative Law**-2- 931 TP 14-00070** 
Judge credited the children’s accounts of the incidents over petitioner’s denials thereof, and we perceive no basis to disturb those credibility determinations ( see generally Matter of Berenhaus v Ward , 70 NY2d 436, 443; Matter of Scaccia v Martinez , 9 AD3d 882, 883).

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Calvin FELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D09-4852.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 26, 2011.

Calvin Felton, Miami, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We treat appellant’s petition as a motion for post conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and affirm.

*Affirmed.*

GROSS, C.J., MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAISY OZIM,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 15099

D.C. No. 4:20

- cv

- 05465

- PJH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Daisy Ozim appeals pro se from the district court ’ s judgment dismissing as

frivolous her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a conspiracy. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e) (2)

. Watison v. Carter , 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)

. W e affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 2 1

- 15099

The district court properly dismissed as frivolous Ozim’s action because

Ozim’s allegation that a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors

conspired with two assailants to murder Ozim lacked any arguable basis in law or

fact. See Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) ( concluding that a

frivolous claim “ lacks an argua ble basis either in law or in fact ” and that “[the]

term ‘frivolous’

. . . embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the

fanciful factual allegation”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend

because it had granted Ozim leave to amend an identical compl ai nt in a related

action and Ozim did not cure the deficiencies

. See Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of

review); Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp. , 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir.

2009) (“[W]here the plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend and has

subsequently failed to add the requisite pa rticularity to its claims, the district

court ’ s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (internal quotation

marks omitted) ).

Ozim’s motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Docket

Entry No. 4) is denied as unnecessary because h er IFP status continues on appeal.

The Clerk is directed to file the o pening b rief at Docket Entry No. 3

.

AFFIRMED.
#### MARION C. O’KEEFE, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF NEW JERSEY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Submitted October 27, 1944

Decided January 4, 1945.

For the appellant, *Frank C. Scerbo.*

For the *respondents,'Walter D. Van Riper.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Perskie in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Porter, Colie, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— Hone.
|   | 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 the Company. |

| Dated: August 9, 2007 |        | By:* */s/ Michael      Forster            |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Michael Forster                                                                                       |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer                                                     |
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26128]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Docket No. SSA-2010-0067]


Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel Meeting

AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA).

ACTION: Notice of upcoming panel teleconference meeting.

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

DATES: November 17, 2010, 10 a.m.-12 p.m. (EDT).
    Call-in number: (866) 261-3182.
    Leader/Host: Debra Tidwell-Peters.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Type of meeting: The teleconference meeting is open to the public.
    Purpose: This discretionary Panel, established under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act of 1972, as amended, shall report to the 
Commissioner of Social Security. The Panel will provide independent 
advice and recommendations on plans and activities to replace the 
Dictionary of Occupational Titles used in our disability determination 
process. The Panel will advise the Agency on creating an occupational 
information system tailored specifically for our disability programs 
and adjudicative needs. The Panel's advice and recommendations will 
relate to our disability programs in the following areas: Medical and 
vocational analysis of disability claims; occupational analysis, 
including definitions, ratings and capture of physical and mental/
cognitive demands of work and other occupational information critical 
to our disability programs; data collection; use of occupational 
information in our disability programs; and any other area(s) that 
would enable us to develop an occupational information system suited to 
our disability programs and improve the medical-vocational adjudication 
policies and processes.
    Agenda: The Designated Federal Officer will post the meeting agenda 
on the Internet at http://www.ssa.gov/oidap/meeting_information.htm at 
least one week prior to the start date. You can also receive a copy 
electronically by e-mail or by fax, upon request. We will keep records 
of all proceedings and make them available for public inspection by 
appointment at the Panel's office.
    Contact Information: Anyone requiring information regarding the 
Panel should contact the Panel staff by: Mail addressed to the 
Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel, Social Security 
Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Operations Building, 3-E-26, 
Baltimore, MD 21235, fax to (410) 597-0825, or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e41474a4f5e4e7d7d6f20696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2867616c6978685b5b49064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>.

Debra Tidwell-Peters,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-26128 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
District of Columbia

Court of Appeals

No. 20-BS-352

IN RE RICHARD L. MORRIS

Board Docket No. 20-PD-015

A Member of the Bar of the District DDN: 2019-D315 and 2020-

of Columbia Court of Appeals D009

BEFORE: Beckwith and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

On consideration of the petition of the Board on Professional Responsibility 

(the “Board”) pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 3(c)(1), to suspend respondent 

temporarily, and Disciplinary Counsel’s motion to file under seal, and it appearing 

respondent has not objected to the relief sought, it is

ORDERED that Disciplinary Counsel’s motion to file under seal is granted. 

It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Board’s petition is granted and respondent is 

suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective 

immediately, pending further order based on (i) Disciplinary Counsel’s notification 

to the court that respondent has responded to the Board orders, or (ii) the court’s 

determination that adequate responses have been filed by respondent. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is drawn to the 

requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, §§ 14 and 16, relating to suspended attorneys. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall file an affidavit in compliance 

with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) with the court and the Board shall serve a copy of the 

affidavit on Disciplinary Counsel. 

PER CURIAM

JUL 30 2020
2

No. 20-BS-352

Copies e-served to:

Richard L. Morris

James T. Phalen, Esquire 

Executive Attorney

Board on Professional Responsibility

Hamilton P. Fox, III, Esquire

Disciplinary Counsel

Office of Disciplinary Counsel

Julia Porter, Esquire

Deputy Disciplinary Counsel 

Office of Disciplinary Counsel

oio
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

S & H TRANSPORT, INC.,

Petitioner

v.

CITY OF YORK,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 750 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the 

remaining issue. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

1. Whether a freight broker is permitted to exclude freight delivery 

charges, to which the broker has no right to retain but rather utilizes 

solely for the purposes of purchasing transportation services for its 

customers, from its taxable gross receipts under the City of York’s 

Business Privilege and Mercantile Tax Ordinance?

2. Whether a municipality may rely on more narrowly tailored 

exclusionary language contained in the Local Tax Enabling Act, 53 

P.S. 5924.101 et seq., to interpret and enforce a more broadly 

worded exclusion contained in the municipalities ordinances?

M.D. Appeal Dkt.

8 2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: CONDEMNATION BY THE 

PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE 

COMMISSION OF PROPERTY LOCATED 

IN THE TOWNSHIP OF BRISTOL, 

BUCKS COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE I-95 

INTERCHANGE PROJECT (PARCEL ID 

NO. 05-020-048) THE PENNSYLVANIA 

TURNPIKE COMMISSION

v.

ORANGE HILL, INC. AND 

MARTIN/PETRONE, L.P.,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 419 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
#### LEE R. WILLITTS v. EXXON CO., U.S.A.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
ACTIVE 213861660v.1

CERTIFICATION

Re:
Morgan  Stanley  Bank  of  America  Merrill  Lynch  Trust  2014-C18,
Commercial  Mortgage  Pass-Through  Certificates,  Series  2014-C18(the  "Transaction"),
issued  pursuant  to  the  Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  dated  as  of  September  1,  2014  (the
"Pooling and Servicing  Agreement"), executed in connection with  the Transaction (capitalized
terms  used  but  not  defined  herein  have  the  meanings  set  forth  in  the  Pooling  and  Servicing
Agreement).



__________________________________________


I, George Kok, certify that:


1.
I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Morgan Stanley Bank
of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2014-C18 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");


2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do
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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the
Exchange Act periodic reports;


4.
Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic
reports,  the  servicer(s)  have  fulfilled  their  obligations  under  the  servicing  agreement(s)  in  all
material respects; and


5.
All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-
backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item
1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an
exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me
by the following unaffiliated parties:



U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator


U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian


Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer


Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer


Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Trust Advisor

2
ACTIVE 213861660v.1



CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function
Participant


National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant

SOX Certification - MSBAM 2014-C18
ACTIVE 213861660v.1

Date:  March 30, 2016


By /s/ George Kok
Name: George Kok
Title: President
Exhibit 32.1



RF MONOLITHICS, INC.



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The
undersigned, David M. Kirk, Chief Executive Officer and President of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 13th day of January, 2006.



/s/ David M. KirkName: David M. KirkTitle: Chief Executive Officer and President




*A signed
original 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.
Exhibit 23.2

 

 

Consent of Independent Auditor

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-206490) on Form S-8 of MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements of GruenePointe Holdings, LLC and Subsidiaries, comprising the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 and the related consolidated statements of operations and changes in members’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2015 and the period from April 21, 2014 (date of inception) through December 31, 2014, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2016, as amended (Form 10-K/A).

 

/s/ McNair, McLemore, Middlebrooks & Co., LLC

 

April 7, 2017

Macon, Georgia
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
	  Training
     
    Search & Site Index Introduction to MSPB
    **Note:**We plan to provide a section 508 compliant version of "Intro to MSPB" as soon   as possible.  In the meantime, if you need a more accessible version of the   video, please e-mail mspb@mspb.gov or phone 202-653-7200, and TDD/videophone users should call via relay.
    **Video formats (streaming in .mp4 format)**
    (.mpg)
      (.avi)PowerPoint Presentation in PDF Format
Your browser does not support the video tag.


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A1685. SAM LEVINE v. GEORGIA ALLOY, LLC et al.

Following an unfavorable dispossessory ruling, Sam Levine appealed to this

Court, and we affirmed the trial court’s ruling. See Levine v. Georgia Alloy, LLC,

Case No. A19A0187, decided May 21, 2019. On March 11, 2020, the trial court

entered its Remittitur Order. Levine then filed this appeal from that order. 

OCGA § 5-6-10 requires the trial court to carry out this Court’s decision. In

entering the order upon remittitur, the trial court fulfilled this requirement.

Accordingly, “the controversy is at an end; [and] the rights of the parties, so far as

they are involved in the litigation, are conclusively adjudicated.” Pearle Optical of

Monroeville v. Georgia State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 219 Ga. 856, 858 (136

SE2d 371) (1964). It followsthat no appeal is permitted from the remittitur order, and

this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

June 30, 2020

06/30/2020