alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Myles N., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Denise N.N., Appellant; Episcopal Social Services, Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 353]

Petitioner agency made the requisite diligent efforts (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *Matter of Lenny R.,*22 AD3d 240 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 708 [2006]). Despite a parent’s compliance with the service plan and regular visitation with the child, permanent neglect can still be found where he fails to acknowledge or gain adequate insight into the domestic violence problem that led to the foster care placement in the first place (Matter *of Alpacheta C.,*41 AD3d 285 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 812 [2007]; *Matter of Galeann F.,*11 AD3d 255 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 703 [2005]). Even though the agency’s progress notes in evidence covered only an 11-month period, respondent’s testimony confirmed permanent neglect of the child for the requisite period, in accordance with the statute.

Respondent failed to preserve her contention that an inadequate foundation had been laid for the admission of the agency’s progress notes, and we decline to review it. In any event, the *382agency caseworker’s testimony established that the highlighted portions of the notes were made in the ordinary course of business, and thus admissible as business records *(Matter of Isaiah R.,*35 AD3d 249 [2006]).

Respondent’s claim that Family Court failed to state the grounds for the permanent neglect finding *(see*Family Ct Act § 1051 [a]) does not require reversal “where, as here, the record amply supports Family Court’s ultimate finding” *(Matter of Amber VV.,*19 AD3d 767, 769 [2005]).

The court’s termination of respondent’s parental rights was entered on default and is thus not appealable *(see Matter of Rosa S.,*38 AD3d 216 [2007]). Were it properly before us, we would affirm. A preponderance of the evidence supported Family Court’s determination that it was in the child’s best interests *(see*Family Ct Act § 631; *Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) to terminate parental rights and enable the foster mother to adopt the child, given that he has lived in the foster home for his entire six years, and has bonded with his foster mother and her children *(Matter of Octavia Lorraine O.,*34 AD3d 258 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
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 Education

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Pat Rattler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 10073, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 245-7893 or by e-mail:                         *pat.rattler@ed.gov.*

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. 

## VIII. Other Information 

*Accessible Format:*                         Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (                        *e.g.*, braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         in section VII in this notice.                     

*Electronic Access to This Document:*                         You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:                         *http://www.ed.gov/​news/​fedregister.*

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530. 

# Note:

                            The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register**                            . Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at:                             *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/​nara/​index.html.*

      ( print page 31267)    
Dated: June 24, 2009. 

William Modzeleski, 

Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

[FR Doc. E9-15489 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Statement of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board September 24, 2008 

 

Railroad Retirement Board 

844 North Rush Street 

Chicago Illinois, 60611-2092 

 

 

Phone:(312) 751-7139 

TTY: (312) 751-4701 

Web: 

 www.rrb.gov

Recent articles in the New York Times and other newspapers have drawn attention to the 

apparent high percentage of Long Island Rail Road employees filing for and receiving 

occupational disability annuities from the Railroad Retirement Board while also receiving 

retirement benefits from the Long Island Rail Road. 

The issue surrounding the Long Island Rail Road is not typical of the RRB's experience with the 

occupational disability program or the average railroad retiree population. While the newspaper 

articles have suggested that Long Island Rail Road retirees receive generous benefits, the 

average occupational disability annuity payable under the Railroad Retirement Act at the end of 

fiscal year 2007 was, in fact, approximately $26,400 per year. Currently almost 600,000 

individuals receive monthly benefits. Only 64,000 or 10.6% are receiving occupational disability 

benefits. Over 70% of all occupationally disabled employees are also found to be totally and 

permanently disabled using the more stringent requirements of the Social Security Act. 

All Board decisions regarding an applicant's eligibility for an occupational disability under 

current law are based on whether the medical evidence submitted meets the standards adopted 

by the Board. The standards for determining the physical and mental conditions which will 

result in an occupational disability were established as a result of the full cooperation of rail 

management and rail labor. The railroads are welcome participants in the occupational 

disability process. The employer is given the opportunity to provide information regarding the 

physical and mental demands of the applicant's job in every occupational disability case and is 

notified when an award of a disability annuity is made. 

It should also be noted that all funding for the occupational disability program comes entirely 

from the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund, which is funded exclusively from taxes imposed on all 

railroad employees and railroad companies. No Social Security Trust Fund money or revenues 

from other sources are utilized to fund the occupational disability program. 

The Board is committed to paying benefits accurately and timely, and to safeguarding its 

customers' trust funds. The Board is concerned about the anomalous issues relating to the Long 

Island Rail Road. The investigation into this matter is ongoing. The agency will continue to work 

with the Board's Office of Inspector General to ensure the integrity of all its programs, including 

addressing the issues raised in the New York Times' articles.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DURON BOSTON PEOPLES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 507 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamal Mack, Jr., Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Roger Hayes, J.), rendered on or about May 26, 2011, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-354

_____________________________

F. Y. J., Mother of R.L.J., a

Minor Child,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Aaron K. Bowden, Judge.

September 23, 2021

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See D.R. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 236 So. 3d 

1175, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“Even in a termination of parental 

rights proceeding, the lack of a transcript mandates affirmance 

unless fundamental error appears on the face of the order.”); see 

also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 

1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the 

appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual 

issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not 

supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without 

knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court 
2

reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law 

as to require reversal.”).

RAY, OSTERHAUS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael R. Yokan, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee;

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, 

Tallahassee; Javier Enriquez, General Counsel for Department of 

Children and Families, Tallahassee; Tracy Sorcek and Kimberly 

M. Dodd, Children’s Legal Services, Jacksonville; Jenna Lea 

Meadows, Guardian ad Litem, Jacksonville; Rebecca Lynn 

Bartlett, Tallahassee for Appellee.
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - September 2007 

Benefit payments September 2007 September 2006 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

23,007,000 

98,777,000 

157,195,000 

$820,156,000 

541,177,000 

22,432,000 

93,674,000 

156,490,000 

$788,336,000 

515,740,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month September 2007 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 575,300 ......... 2,600 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 277,600 $1,925 1,100 $2,569 ......... .........

 Age 193,300 1,890 2 600 2 3,010 $1,052 3 $1,399

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,100 1,713 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 50,200 2,203 200 2,434 980 1,033 

Spouses and divorced spouses 137,400 709 900 903 504 364 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 133,900 1,167 500 1,546 996 821 

Widowed mothers and fathers 900 1,471 4/ 1,589 762 736 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,400 775 100 762 5/ 5/ 

Children 11,100 853 4/ 1,180 687 679 

Other survivors 4/ 858 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

September 

2007 

$5,042,000 

September 

2006 

$5,101,000 

Number 

121,200 

Average 

$42 600 

Number 

$41 

Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); about 300

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

September 2007 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 2,600 $530 $292 

Sickness 5,900 530 

September 2007 

292 

Benefit payments 

September 2006 

Unemployment

Total 

-623,000 

$3,109,000 $4,523,000 

1,787,000 

Sickness 3,732,000 2,736,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

Bureau of the Actuary

Recycled

 Paper
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1060

ESKEDAR TESHOME-GEBREEGZIABHER,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: August 29, 2008 Decided: October 30, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and Claude M.

HILTON, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason A. Dzubow, MENSAH, BUTLER & DZUBOW, PLLC, Washington, D.C.,

for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney

General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Stuart S. Nickum,

OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eskedar Teshome-Gebreegziabher, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her

applications for relief from removal. Teshome challenges the

determination that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum.

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for

relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Teshome fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0340. JADARRIUS MILLER v. THE STATE.

This case was docketed by this Court on September 21, 2021. The Appellant’s

brief and enumeration of errors were originally due on October 11, 2021. On October

5, the Appellant filed a motion for extension of time. In an order dated October 13,

2021, we granted an extension until November 12, 2021. As of the date of this order,

the Appellant still has not filed a brief and enumeration of errors. The filing is 115

days late. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby deemed abandoned and DISMISSED

pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a). See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. 

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to the Appellant.

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.

March 07, 2022

03/07/2022
s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 10, 2015

No. 04-15-00349-CV

Steven M. GARY,

Appellant

v.

Mary ROMAN,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-01986

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

 No timely contest has been filed to appellant Steven M. Gary’s affidavit of indigence. 

Accordingly, he may proceed in this appeal without prepayment of costs.

We order the record filed by July 17, 2015. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00876-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.Z. and K.W.Z., Children

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI-18104

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Costs of this appeal are taxed 

against appellee. 

SIGNED July 22, 2015.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00426-CR

Roberto CALDERON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. A05129

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court imposed a two-year sentence in the underlying cause on August 16, 2005. 

Appellant filed a motion for new trial and application for writ of habeas corpus. The Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals denied appellant’s writ on June 12, 2007. On June 25, 2015,

appellant filed a notice of appeal and motion for new trial in the district court and on July 13, 

2015, filed a notice of appeal in this Court.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. See 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may be 

considered timely so as to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction if (1) it is filed within fifteen 

days of the last day allowed for filing, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of 

appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the 

court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. See id. 

It appears that the notice of appeal was untimely filed with regard to appellant’s original 

appeal from judgment of conviction. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in 

writing within two weeks from the date this order is signed this appeals should not be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. See id.; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991)(out-of-time appeal from final felony conviction may be sought by filing a writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure).
_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00159-CV

Ronald MENSCH,

Appellant

v.

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CI02326

Honorable Stephani Walsh, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 15, 2015

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED 

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.1(a)(1). Appellant also requests that each party be ordered to bear its own appellate costs. 

However, the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the assessment of 

costs; accordingly, all costs of appeal will be assessed against appellant. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.1(d) (absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00500-CR

Edward ROMERO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR3128

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

MODIFIED to correct a clerical error and to correctly reflect that the jury found appellant Edward 

Romero guilty of the offense of aggravated assault by causing serious bodily injury to a family 

member while using a deadly weapon, as charged in the indictment. We further MODIFY the 

judgment to correct a second clerical error and to correctly reflect that the trial court, not the jury, 

assessed punishment, and therefore strike the portion of the judgment purporting to reflect the 

jury’s verdict on punishment. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED July 22, 2015.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Owens-Illinois Group,Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that to such officer’s knowledge:

(i)           the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the yearended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

(ii)          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| Dated: March 1, 2007 |   | /s/ Albert P.L. Stroucken            |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Albert P.L. Stroucken                |
|                 |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|                 |   | Owens-Illinois Group, Inc.           |

 

----

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----