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

[977 NYS2d 84]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), dated August 12, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this proceeding pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the defendant was designated a level two sex offender. The defendant’s contention that he was improperly assessed 15 points under risk factor 12 (“acceptance of responsibility”) on the ground that he refused to participate in sex offender treatment because his direct appeal was pending at that time, is preserved for appellate review *(see People v Fryer,*101 AD3d 835 [2012]). The defendant’s remaining contentions regarding this risk factor are unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to raise those grounds before the Supreme Court *(see id..).*In any event, all of the defendant’s contentions are without merit. The People presented clear and convincing evidence that the defendant refused to participate in sex offender treatment while incarcerated *(see People v Barclay,*107 *803AD3d 868 [2013]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there does not have to be clear and convincing evidence of both a failure to accept responsibility and a refusal to participate in treatment in order to assess 15 points under this risk factor. Rather, *“a*refusal to participate in a sex offender treatment program automatically demonstrates an unwillingness to accept responsibility for the crime” *(People v DeCastro,*101 AD3d 693, 693 [2012]; *see People v Radage,*98 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2012]). The defendant failed to provide any proof that he refused to participate in sex offender treatment because of the impact any admission might have had on his direct appeal and possible resentence *(cf. People v Kearns,*68 AD3d 1713, 1713-1714 [2009]). In any event, the “ ‘risk assessment guidelines do not contain exceptions with respect to a defendant’s reasons for refusing to participate in treatment’ ” *(People v Thousand,*109 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2013], quoting *People v Kearns,*68 AD3d at 1714). Reasons for not participating in sex offender treatment are only relevant in considering a request for a downward departure, and the defendant never made such a request *(see People v Thousand,*109 AD3d 1149 [2013]; *People v Kearns,*68 AD3d at 1713-1714).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly assessed the defendant 15 points under risk factor 12 in adjudicating him a level two sex offender. Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 5, 2018

Order 

Clerk

December 5, 2018

158645(18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

SC: 158645

v COA: 345218

Oakland CC: 2015-255833-FH,

 2015-255834-FH

STEVEN BARRY RUZA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time for 

filing its answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer will be 

accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 17, 2019.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF UTILX CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS 
ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             713
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                       298
<INVENTORY>                                      8,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,003
<PP&E>                                          32,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,387
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,911
<SALES>                                         18,767
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,767
<CGS>                                           16,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    10
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  61
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (267)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (268)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (268)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
National Interagency Coordination Center
Toggle Font Size
      Toggle OpenDyslexic
      Toggle Dyslexia-friendly black-on-creme color scheme
      Contact Us
KeywordsHomeIncident InformationIncident Management Situation Report (IMSR)IMSR MapGeographic AreasPredictive ServicesIntelligenceWeatherFuels/Fire DangerOutlooksLogisticsAviationOverheadCrewsEquipment & SuppliesReference DocumentsAirspaceNMACAll Hazard ResponseContact Home
                        National Interagency Coordination Center
  All Hazard Response
While suppressing wildland fires is the firefighting community’s primary mission, wildland firefighters can also be mobilized to All Hazard Incidents through different agency agreements and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. All Hazard Incidents include, but are not limited to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, oil spills, and pandemic response. Links to agency specific All Hazard Incident response are listed below.Department of Interior

  DOI All-Hazard Responders

DOI Incident Positions Qualification Guide

DOI Office of Emergency Management

DOI Master Agreement Operations Guide
Fish and Wildlife Service

  FWS Emergency Consultation - Oil Spills, etc

FWS Emergency Management
National Park Service

  NPS Emergency Management
US Forest Service

  USFS Incident Business Practices for All Hazard Response

Foundational Doctrine Guiding All-Hazard Response in the USFS

Foundational Doctrine for All-Hazard Response

Standard Operating Procedures For Non FEMA All Hazard Incidents Occurring on National Forest Lands
Federal Emergency Management Service

  FEMA Website

Disaster Assistance
 **National Interagency Coordination Center**
National Interagency Fire Center
3833 S. Development Ave.
Boise, Idaho, 83705
NIFC Homepage
              
              
              Social
  

        
              Facebook
                Twitter
                Flickr
                YouTube
                LinkedIn
              About
  

        
              About NIFC
                FAQ
                Map and Directions
                Phone Directory nifc.gov
An official website of the Department of the Interior
      
      About DOI.gov
	Accessibility statement
	FOIA requests
      No FEAR Act data
	Office of the Inspector General
	Budget & performance reports
      Agency financial reports
	Disclaimer
	Privacy policy
      Vulnerability disclosure policy
	Cummings Act notices
      Looking for U.S. government information and services? Visit USA.gov

The National Interagency Fire Center is committed to making its information and communication technologies accessible to individuals with disabilities by meeting or exceeding the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. To meet this commitment, we continue to monitor and update our content to make sure our documents meet these standards.
**Exhibit 10.7****FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE**     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE (this “First Amendment”) is made and entered into as ofMarch 31, 2006, by and between HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation(“Landlord”), and SPORT CHALET, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Tenant”).**RECITALS:**A. Landlord currently leases to Tenant certain “Premises” (as more particularly describedin the “Lease”, as hereinafter defined), located at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevardand Stark Street in Huntington Beach, California, pursuant to that certain Lease (the“Lease”) dated as of August 25, 1994, by and between Landlord and Tenant (then known asSport Chalet, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation). All initial capitalized terms used herein butnot herein defined shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Lease.B. Landlord and Tenant now desire to enter into this First Amendment to amend the Lease to providefor the grant of two (2) additional options to extend the Term of the Lease, each by an additionalfive (5) year Option Term (in addition to the two (2) existing options to extend the Term of theLease each by an additional five (5) year Option Term, as provided in the Lease) for a total offour (4) Option Terms of five (5) years each, on the terms and subject to the conditions moreparticularly provided herein.     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which ishereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Lease     (a) Section 3(c) of the Lease is hereby amended and restated as follows:     Landlord hereby grants Tenant four (4) separate options (the “Options”) toextend the Term of this Lease for four (4) separate consecutive terms (the “OptionTerms”) of five (5) years each, following expiration of the then existing Term, upon allthe terms and conditions contained in this Lease, except for the payment of Minimum Rentwhich shall be in accordance with the provisions of
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2626 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2626

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on polytetramethylene ether 
                                glycol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on polytetramethylene ether 
                                glycol.

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

SECTION 1. POLYTETRAMETHYLENE ETHER GLYCOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.98 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to polytetramethylene ether 
glycol) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Syracuse University, Respondent, v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 921]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated decision and order) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered March 7, 2013. The judgment, among other things, denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the cross motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action seeking declaratory relief.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. Present — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ. [Prior Case History: 40 Misc 3d 1205(A), 2013 NY Slip Op 51041(U).]
EXHIBIT 21  Subsidiaries of Registrant As of January 1, 2011  State or Jurisdiction

Percentage of VotingSubsidiaries

of Incorporation

Securities OwnedMedical Concepts Staffing, Inc. (Inactive)

Minnesota

100.0
%Analysts International Strategic Sourcing   Services, LLC (Inactive: in process of dissolution)

Minnesota

100.0
%Analysts International Business Resources   Services, LLC (Inactive: in process of dissolution)

Minnesota

100.0
%Analysts International Business Solutions Services,   LLC (Inactive: in process of dissolution)

Minnesota

100.0
%Analysts International Management Services, LLC   (Inactive: in process of dissolution)

Minnesota

100.0
%
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The North Central Idaho RAC will meet in Grangeville, Idaho. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss potential projects for the new fiscal year.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held November 12, 2009 at 10 a.m. (PST).

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be held at Nez Perce National Forest Supervisor's Office, 104 Airport Road in Grangeville. Written comments should be sent to Laura Smith at 104 Airport Road in Grangeville, Idaho 83530. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to                         *lasmith@fs.fed.us*                         or via facsimile to Laura at 208-983-4099.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Smith, Designated Forest Official at 208-983-5143.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. A public forum will begin at 3:15 p.m. (PST). The following business will be conducted: discussion of project for FY10 and project updates. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.

Dated: October 14, 2009.

Rick Brazell,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. E9-25301 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
# **EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, David J. Steichen,Interim Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of AnalystsInternational Corporation (the Registrant);

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:

 

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

a)     disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalent function):

 

a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated:  March 18, 2004 | By:    | /s/ David J. Steichen            |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                        |   | David J. Steichen                |
|                        |   | Interim Chief Financial  Officer |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet found on page 3 and consolidated statement
of operations found on page 5 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the
year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                             3,447,495
<SECURITIES>                       9,628,125
<RECEIVABLES>                        794,296
<ALLOWANCES>                          22,750
<INVENTORY>                          184,649
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   4,611,120
<PP&E>                             8,615,106
<DEPRECIATION>                     4,405,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    21,458,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              3,568,755
<BONDS>                                    0
<COMMON>                                 295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                        11,393,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      21,458,212
<SALES>                            1,447,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,447,190
<CGS>                                865,699
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        865,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     702,515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   137,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    1,072,376
<INCOME-TAX>                         218,639
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  853,737
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         853,737
<EPS-BASIC>                           0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.27

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

Order 

December 30, 2014

147883-7(54)

MENARD, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147883

COA: 310399

Ct of Claims: 10-000082-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

STATE TREASURER and

STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147884

COA: 311053

Ct of Claims: 09-000068-MT

STATE TREASURER, STATE OF 

MICHIGAN, and DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

MENARD INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147885

COA: 311261

Ct of Claims: 09-000057-MT

STATE TREASURER, STATE OF 

MICHIGAN, and DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 30, 2014

d1215

2

Clerk

ART VAN FURNITURE-CONNER INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147886

COA: 311294

Ct of Claims: 09-000059-MT

STATE TREASURER, STATE OF 

MICHIGAN, and DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

ART VAN FURNITURE INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147887

COA: 312168

Ct of Claims: 09-000058-MT

STATE TREASURER, STATE OF 

MICHIGAN, and DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 16, 2014 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant the motion for reconsideration.