alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Corey S., an Infant. New York Foundling Hospital et al., Respondents; Angel S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Angel S., Appellant, v Sandra I.V., Respondent, and Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[975 NYS2d 906]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect and a related child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated October 11, 2012, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that he permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Administration for Children’s Services and the New York Foundling Hospital for the purpose of adoption, and (2) an order of the same court dated September 17, 2012, which dismissed his petition for custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition dated October 11, 2012, and the order dated September 17, 2012, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly found that the father permanently neglected the subject child. The petitioner established by clear *642and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; *Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]). These efforts included facilitating visitation, providing the father with referrals for drug treatment programs and mental health evaluations and counseling, and repeatedly advising the father of the need to attend and complete such programs and submit to random drug screenings *(see Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368 [1984]; *Matter of Temple S.M. [Tricia*M.], 97 AD3d 681 [2012]). Despite these efforts, the father failed to plan for the child’s future by, inter alia, failing to cooperate with drug screenings, failing to complete a mental health evaluation and, following a court-ordered hair follicle drug test, testing positive for cocaine *(see Matter of Carmine A.B. [Nicole B.],*101 AD3d 711 [2012]; *Matter of Leon G.,*7 AD3d 524 [2004]; *Matter of Ronell Dashawn P.,*296 AD2d 502 [2002]). Moreover, based on the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the father’s parental rights *(see Matter of “Baby Boy*” *E.,*42 AD3d 536 [2007]; *Matter of Juanita F.,*291 AD2d 496 [2002]; *Matter of Alfred B.,*212 AD2d 529 [1995]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Alireza Dilmaghani, an Attorney, Appellant. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Respondent.

Submitted November 15, 2010;

decided November 30, 2010

Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
II 

Calendar No. 508 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2906 

[Report No. 111–246] 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to modify a provision relating to 

leases involving certain Indian tribes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 18, 2009 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

AUGUST 3, 2010 

Reported by Mr. DORGAN, with amendments 

[Insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to modify a provision 

relating to leases involving certain Indian tribes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LEASES INVOLVING CERTAIN INDIAN TRIBES. 

4 The first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 (25 

5 U.S.C. 415), is amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2906 RS

1 (1) in subsection (a), in the second sentence, by 

2 inserting ‘‘and land held in trust for the Kalispel 

3 Tribe of Indians, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians,’’ 

4 after ‘‘the Kalispel Indian Reservation’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘, the Puy6 allup Tribe of Indians, the Swinomish Indian Tribal 

7 Community, or the Kalispel Tribe of Indians’’ after 

8 ‘‘Tulalip Tribes’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 508 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2906 

[Report No. 111–246] 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to modify a 

dian tribes. provision relating to leases involving certain InAUGUST 3, 2010 

Reported with amendments 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
* Judge Widener did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7371
FRED SHORES, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-264-1) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER* and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Shores, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Fred Shores, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Shores v. Beck , No. CA-00-264-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 2000). Shores’ motion to amend is granted. 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.

DISMISSED
Art’s-Way
Letterhead





January
19, 2009





West
Bank


1601
22nd
Street


West Des
Moines, IA 50266





Mr. Kevin
Smith:





In
conjunction with the preparation of our financial statements as of November 30,
2008, we have determined that we are not in compliance with the certain
restrictive covenant of the business loan agreement.  Under the terms
of our agreement, you  may have the right to demand immediate payment
of the entire balance of the note, which would affect our classification and
disclosure requirements related to the note.  The covenant that we
believe we are not in compliance with is:





Covenant:


·
            Borrowers
      agree to maintain a maximum debt/tangible net worth ratio of 1.25
      times.  For the year ended November 30, 2008, Art’s-Way
      Manufacturing’s debt/tangible net worth ratio is 1.26
    times.





We hereby
request that you waive your right to demand payment of the note as a result of
the noncompliance identified above, through November 30, 2009.





Please
indicate your acceptance of this waiver request by signing
below.  Please return one signed copy of this letter directly to us
for our file.





If you
have any questions, please call.





Sincerely,





/s/ Carrie Majeski





Carrie
Majeski


Chief
Executive Officer





We hereby
waive our right to demand payment of the above referenced note as a result of
the noncompliance identified above through November 30, 2008.  This
waiver extends only to the restrictive covenant described above.  All
other terms and conditions of the note shall remain in full force and
effect.





WEST
BANK





Signed
      by:
                /s/Kevin
    SmithTitle:
                Senior Vice PresidentDate:
                January 20,
2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allan Vernon, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 763]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered September 13, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5x/2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 128055 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 128055 

 COA: 256827 
 Wayne CC: 02-010935-01 

GEORGE ALEXANDER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 3, 2004 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0919 

I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, 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. 

September 28, 2005
 

Clerk
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 7477

JUSTIN GORE ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
STACEY KINCAID; SERGEANT CABLE, Sheriff; MDS GRADY ,
Defendants

- Appellees ,
and

FAIRFAX ADULT DETENTION CENTER ,
Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis , III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv

- 0090 8

- TSE

- IDD )

Submitted : March 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.

Justin Gore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Justin Gore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) action without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s order to explain his
alleged violation of a consent order to withdraw money from his inmate trust account. ∗
We conclude that Gore’s response, which the district court docketed as a notice of appeal,
is actually an explanation in compliance with the court’s order. We therefore vacate the

district court’s dismissal order and remand the case for the district co urt to consider
Gore’s explanation in the first instance and to conduct further proceedings as necessary.
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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

∗ The district court’s dismissal without prejudice on procedural grounds is final and appealable. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 623

- 24 (4th Cir. 2015).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,853)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          85,547
<DEPRECIATION>                                (68,736)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         11,068
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,058
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,765
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,336
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,426
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   385
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,211
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,211
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,211
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
dated April 28, 2000 in this Form 10-K. It should be noted that we have
performed no audit procedures subsequent to April 28, 2000, the date of our
report, except with respect to the information in Note 8 as to which the date is
June 27, 2000. Furthermore, we have not audited any financial statements of
Aqua-Chem, Inc. as of any date or for any period subsequent to March 31, 2000.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Milwaukee, Wisconsin
June 27, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000008192
<NAME> ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,791,505
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     92,503
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         239,751
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       312,996
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,436,755
<COMMON>                                        54,963
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      493,161
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            234,909
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 783,033
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           33,950
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           833,744
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              55,675
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     39,077
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   653
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 590,623
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,436,755
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,084,890
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            50,442
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     894,838
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     894,838
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        190,052
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              15,410
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 205,462
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        63,498
<NET-INCOME>                                    85,747
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      4,821
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   80,926
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        80,856
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         170,270
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3244 Referred in House (RFH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3244

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 2010

 Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to 
 the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living 
               adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011.

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

SECTION 1. NO COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be 
made under section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 
(2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of 
Congress) during fiscal year 2011.

            Passed the Senate April 22, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
(2
2 y
S$ é
at
Ly ~
Ne comm?

August 17, 2012

Strategic Plan and Draft Consultation Policy
Dear Tribal Leader :

On behalf of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission), we invite
you to participate in a consultation meeting on the NIGC Strategic Plan, which will be the
framework that NIGC will use to focus the efforts of the agency from FY 2014 — 2018 on
a set of strategic goals, and the NIGC’s draft consultation policy. We know that the best
results can be achieved after meaningful consultation with Indian tribes and we look
forward to your participation.

The NIGC recognizes and respects the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the government-
to-government relationship that exists between the United States and tribal governments.
Accordingly, the NIGC is committed to implementing the President’s November 5, 2009
Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation with Indian tribes and Executive Order
13475:

Therefore, we invite all tribal leaders to share their views with the Commission on the
NIGC Strategic Plan and draft consultation policy at a consultation scheduled for
September 17, 2012 in Hollywood, FL, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at the following location:

Seminole Hard Rock Hotel
1 Seminole Way
Hollywood, FL

Ballroom C

For those tribal leaders unable to attend this consultation, we invite you to submit written
comments by e-mail to reg.review@nigc.gov, or by U.S. mail to National Indian Gaming
Commission, Attn: Regulatory Review, 1441 L Street, NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC
20005. All written comments must be received no later than October 31, 2012.

The Commission intends to post comments received and transcripts of each consultation
on the NIGC website under the heading “Tribal Consultation,” on the lefi-hand side of

For planning purposes, and to accommodate all who want to attend the consultation,
please RSVP to Rita Homa, Executive Secretary, at (202) 418-9807 or by e-mail at
consultation.rsvp@nige.gov. Information regarding the time and location of this tribal
consultation will be posted on our website.

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.Gov

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK



We are committed to working together on a government-to-government basis to
maximize tribal input on the NIGC’s Strategic Plan and consultation policy. We look
forward to meeting with you should your schedule allow.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Sincerely,
f p ~ f
4 pry A .
ISMN L a)
Tracie L. Stevens Steffani A. Cochran Daniel J. Little

Chairwoman Vice-Chairwoman Associate Commissioner
<PAGE>

                                                          Exhibit 10.3

                           ANGELICA CORPORATION
                     FORM 10-K FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                             JANUARY 30, 1999

                                 SCHEDULE
                                 --------

The participation agreements presently in effect under the Angelica
Corporation Management Retention and Incentive Plan are substantially
identical in all material respects.  This revised schedule is included
pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for the
purpose of setting forth the material details in which the specific
agreements differ from the form of agreement filed as Exhibit 10.3 to
the Angelica Corporation Form 10-K for fiscal year ended 1/30/93:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  "Benefit Multiple"
Name                       Title                               Pursuant to Paragraph 3
----                       -----                               -----------------------
<S>                        <C>                                          <C>
T. M. Armstrong            Sr. Vice President-Finance                    2.99
                           and Administration

M. E. Burnham              Vice President                                2.99

L. L. Mann                 Controller and Assistant Secretary            2.99

Charles D. Molloy, Jr.     Vice President                                2.00

A. D. Wilson               Vice President                                2.99

</TABLE>
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

****

February 12, 2015

No. 10-14-00190-CR

EDWARD S. HODGES, III

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13,002

**JUDGMENT**

	This Court has reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record in this proceeding as relevant to the issues raised and finds no reversible error is presented.  Accordingly the trial court’s order denying DNA testing, signed on May 28, 2014, is affirmed.

	A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to the trial court clerk for enforcement.

							PER CURIAM

****SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK

						By:    Nita Whitener			

							Deputy Clerk

# image1.png

# image2.png
97-383.

#### State v. Anderson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 69620. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Resnick, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.