alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 13 (Thursday, January 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1201]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW174048]


Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from Red River Oil and Gas, LLC for 
competitive oil and gas lease WYW174048 for land in Carbon County, 
Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the 
rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 
Weaver, Acting Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 
775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or 
fraction thereof, per year, and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The 
lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to 
reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. 
The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease 
as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act 
of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing 
to reinstate lease WYW174048 effective August 1, 2008, under the 
original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and 
royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting 
the lands.

Julie L. Weaver,
Acting Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. E9-1201 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
#### Neftali Centeno, Appellant, v 575 E. 137th St. Real Estate, Inc., Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 335]

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered on or about October 16, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Elaintiff failed to show that the trapdoor through which he fell suffered from a structural or design defect in violation of a specific statutory provision, as required to impose liability upon defendant, an out-of-possession landlord *(see Kittay v*Moskowitz, 95 AD3d 451 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 859 [2013]; *Devlin v Blaggards III Rest. Corp.,*80 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2011], *Iv denied*16 NY3d 713 [2011]). The stairway beneath the trapdoor served as a means of providing easy access between the upstairs store room and the basement. There is no evidence that it provided a means of egress from the building. Accordingly, Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-375 (Interior stairs) is not applicable, since “interior stair” is defined as “[a] stair within a building, that serves as a required exit” (Administrative Code § 27-232; *see Cusumano v City of New York,*15 NY3d 319, 324 [2010]). Administrative Code § 28-301.1, which repeals and re-codifies former sections 27-127 and 27-128 *(see McLaughlin v Ann-Gur Realty Corp.,*107 AD3d 469, 469 [1st Dept 2013]), is also unavailing. Sections 27-127 and 27-128 were merely nonspecific safety provisions *(Ram v 64th St.-Third Ave. Assoc., LLC,*61 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2009]; *see Kittay,*95 AD3d at 452).

Similarly unavailing is Administrative Code § 27-126, which was merely a nonspecific provision defining certain work as nonminor. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Richter, ManzanetDaniels and Feinman, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel L. Rodriguez, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 829]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J), rendered August 13, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]). The challenge by defendant to County Court’s suppression ruling is encompassed by that valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see Kemp,*94 NY2d at 833; *People v Goossens,*92 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 960 [2012]). Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Garni, Valentino and "Whalen, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,882
<PP&E>                                         323,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                 294,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          357,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    710,000
<COMMON>                                        21,618
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,891,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,633
<SALES>                                        583,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               583,782
<CGS>                                          463,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (82,098)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,098)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph Andrew DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael PETTIFORD, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-7579.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 26, 2009.

Joseph Andrew Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Andrew Davis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Davis v. Pettiford,*No. 0:07-cv-01670-TLW, 2008 WL 2928188 (D.S.C. July 23, 2008). 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1999
<CASH>                                      14,961,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,883,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                 11,194,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,377,000
<PP&E>                                     142,151,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             107,086,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,730,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,791,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   128,328,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (102,024,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,730,000
<SALES>                                     25,656,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,656,000
<CGS>                                       21,001,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,001,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,559,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             392,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,397,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,397,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,397,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 949 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 949

To require the payment of interest on amounts owed by the United States 
   pursuant to the reliquidation of certain entries under the Tariff 
   Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 and the Miscellaneous Trade and 
                   Technical Corrections Act of 2004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2005

 Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Kerry) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the payment of interest on amounts owed by the United States 
   pursuant to the reliquidation of certain entries under the Tariff 
   Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 and the Miscellaneous Trade and 
                   Technical Corrections Act of 2004.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON AMOUNTS OWED PURSUANT TO THE 
              RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES.

    (a) Amendments.--Sections 1404(b), 1405(b), and subsection (c) of 
each of sections 1408 through 1411 of the Tariff Suspension and Trade 
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-476; 19 U.S.C. 1654 note) and subsection 
(c) of each of sections 1517 through 1536 of the Miscellaneous Trade 
and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-429; 19 U.S.C. 
1654 note) are amended by inserting ``, with interest provided for by 
law on the liquidation or reliquidation of the entries.'' after ``under 
subsection (a)''.
    (b) Reliquidation and Payment of Interest.--Not later than 90 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland 
Security shall--
            (1) reliquidate each of the entries specified in the 
        provisions of law amended by subsection (a); and
            (2) provide payment of interest owed by the United States 
        by reason of the amendments made by subsection (a) for the 
        period beginning on the date of deposit of estimated duties and 
        ending on the date of reliquidation under paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit (21)



HILCOAST DEVELOPMENT CORP.

List of Subsidiaries



               NewCen Communities, Inc.

               NewCen Golf Course, Inc.

               NewCen Maintenance, Inc.

               Flamingo Precast, Inc.

               Century Village Real Estate, Inc.

               Boca Admin, Inc.
     
               Lyons Properties, Inc.

               Lyons Centers, Inc.

               Hilcoast Advisory Services, Incc.

               C.V.P. Community Center, Inc.

               VLX Properties, Inc.

               Pines Master Management, Inc.

               Hilcoast Title Insurance Agency, Inc.

               NewCen Electric, Inc.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1358** 

MISS CATHERINE RANDOLPH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

US ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Defendant

- Appellee

.

**No. 15**  **- 1411** 

CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Dept. of Justice , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv
- 00916

- ELH ; 1:15

- cv
- 00982

- ELH )

Submitted : June 18 , 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD , DUNCAN , and AGEE , Circuit Judges.Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Catherine Denise Randolph , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Catherine Denise Randolph
appeals the district court’s order s dismissing her complaint s for failing to state a clai m. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B)(ii)
(2012). We have reviewed the record s and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals as frivolous for the reasons stated by the district court. Randolph v. Attorney

Gen. , No. 1:15

- cv
- 00916

- ELH (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2015 ) ; Randolph v.
Lynch , No. 1:15

- cv
- 00982

- ELH (D. Md. filed Apr. 9, 2015; entered
Apr. 10, 2015)

. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3
The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. THOMAS HUNTLEY, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-08-001A DECISION

On June 4, 2010, the defendant was sentenced for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, for the offense of Partner or Family Member Assault, a Felony. This sentence shall run consecutively with the sentence imposed in Flathead County Cause No. DC-08-232C.

On November 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Lindsey Pilecki. The state was represented by Kenneth Clark.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rides of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it *92is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of November, 2010.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 819 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 819

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs of the 
 Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased demands 
       for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 15, 2005

  Mr. Johnson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs of the 
 Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased demands 
       for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife 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 ``Pactola Reservoir Reallocation 
Authorization Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) it is appropriate to reallocate the costs of the 
        Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased 
        demands for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife 
        purposes; and
            (2) section 302 of the Department of Energy Organization 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 7152) prohibits such a reallocation of costs 
        without congressional approval.

SEC. 3. REALLOCATION OF COSTS OF PACTOLA DAM AND RESERVOIR, SOUTH 
              DAKOTA.

    The Secretary of the Interior may, as provided in the contract of 
August 2001 entered into between Rapid City, South Dakota, and the 
Rapid Valley Conservancy District, reallocate, in a manner consistent 
with Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, 
chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 
U.S.C. 371 et seq.)), the construction costs of Pactola Dam and 
Reservoir, Rapid Valley Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, South 
Dakota, from irrigation purposes to municipal, industrial, and fish and 
wildlife purposes.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Thomas C. Shull, President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Edward M. Lambert, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of
Hanover Direct, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that to his
knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March
29, 2003 of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company for the period specified.

Signed at the City of Edgewater, in the State of New Jersey, this 12th day of
May, 2003.

                              /s/ Thomas C. Shull
                      _____________________________________
                                 Thomas C. Shull
                      President and Chief Executive Officer

                              /s/ Edward M.Lambert
                      _____________________________________
                                Edward M. Lambert
                          Executive Vice President and
                             Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
#### John Bykowsky et al., Appellants, v Irving Eskenazi et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[870 NYS2d 312]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered November 20, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, held that defendants Eskenazi and Landau (the Individuals) are not liable to plaintiffs on a certain promissory note, or for the rescission fee in the subject contract, or for lost profits, unanimously modified, on the law, to hold that the Individuals are liable on the note and for lost profits, the amounts of which are to be determined at the trial on damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

After a trial on liability, the court found that “defendants Eskenazi, Landau, Basketball City NY, Inc. and Basketball City USA, Inc. are liable to plaintiffs for breach of [contract] and any consequential damages resulting from the breach.” This finding made law of the case that precludes the Individuals’ present challenges to their liability on the note and for lost profits. But even if there were no law of the case, we would hold the Individuals liable for the nonpayment of the note by defendants Basketball City New York, Inc. and Basketball City USA, Inc. (the BBCs), and also for lost profits. The various parties’ obligations under the contract, which involved the creation of a chain of sports complexes, were interrelated, such that the Individuals’ failure to secure financing in a manner compliant with the contract prevented the closing where the agreed upon exchange of shares was to take place, which in turn prevented plaintiff League’s predecessor from being able to play games in the new complex, which in turn resulted in lost profits. Furthermore, as payment of the promissory note was conditioned on the League’s playing a quota of games, the failure to close also resulted in plaintiff Bykowsky’s inability to collect on the note. Accordingly, nonpayment of the note, and the lost profits arising out of the *406inability to use the complex, were within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting and were “the natural and probable consequence of the breach” *(Kenford Co. v County of Erie,*73 NY2d 312, 319 [1989]). Plaintiffs are also entitled to contractual indemnification from the Individuals and the BBCs. However, plaintiffs are not entitled to recovery of the rescission fee, which, under the contract, was only available during a limited period of time. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 33734(U).]