alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[824 NYS2d 825]

#### In the Matter of Bryon W. Gross, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

September 22, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Andrea E. Tomaino, Associate Counsel, Seventh Judicial District Grievance Committee,*Rochester, for petitioner.

*24
      *Bryon W. Gross,*Rochester, respondent pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 11, 1999, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Rochester. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with misconduct arising from his two convictions of driving while intoxicated as a misdemeanor. Respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the petition and raising, in mitigation, his alcoholism.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [3])—engaging in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; and

DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5])—engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Additionally, by failing to report his first conviction of driving while intoxicated to this Court, respondent violated Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (c).

We have considered, in mitigation, respondent’s admitted alcoholism for which he is currently in treatment. Additionally, we note that respondent has an otherwise unblemished record and that his misconduct was unrelated to his practice of law. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured on condition that he agrees to continue in treatment for his alcoholism for a period of 24 months. In the event that respondent fails to continue in treatment or commits additional misconduct during that period, the Grievance Committee shall immediately apply for an order returning the proceeding to this Court for imposition of appropriate discipline *(see Matter of Huyck,*207 AD2d 88 [1994]; *Matter of Reichert,*205 AD2d 5 [1994]).

Pigott, Jr., PJ., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Martoche and Smith, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.
§ 381.80 General; biological residues. ( a ) The carcasses or parts of carcasses of all poultry inspected at an official establishment and found at the time of post mortem inspection, or at any subsequent inspection, to be affected with any of the diseases or conditions named in other sections in this subpart, shall be disposed of in accordance with the section pertaining to the disease or condition. Owing to the fact that it is impracticable to formulate rules for each specific disease or conditions and to designate at just what stage a disease process results in an adulterated article, the decision as to the disposal of all carcasses, organs or other parts not specifically covered by the regulations, or by instructions of the Administrator issued pursuant thereto, shall be left to the inspector in charge, and if the inspector in charge is in doubt concerning the disposition to be made, specimens from such carcasses shall be forwarded to the Inspection Service laboratory for diagnosis.
( b ) All carcasses, organs, or other parts of carcasses of poultry shall be condemned if it is determined on the basis of a sound statistical sample that they are adulterated because of the presence of any biological residues.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>

Exhibit 27:                 Financial Data Schedule

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                  3,975,672
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,201,531
<ALLOWANCES>                            16,145
<INVENTORY>                             147,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        5,341,922
<PP&E>                                  971,673
<DEPRECIATION>                          65,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          6,313,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   509,732
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                5,669
<OTHER-SE>                              6,289,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            6,313,595
<SALES>                                 2,987,067
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        4,623,816
<CGS>                                   1,338,317
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,338,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        3,208,207
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      3,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         717,792
<INCOME-TAX>                            571,085
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            146,707
<EPS-BASIC>                           0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.03



</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133067 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

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

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133067 

 COA: 274076 

Kent CC: 05-008602-FC 

HEATHER CASSANDRA-OCTAVIA TRUE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 5, 2006 

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

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

d0521 

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. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 19, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-356

Lower Tribunal No. 06-964

________________

Giovanna Settimi Caraffa, as personal representative of the Estate

of Benedetto Emanuelle Caraffa,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

vs.

Carnival Corporation,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jacqueline

Hogan Scola, Judge.

Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, David M. Gersten and Christopher A.

Noel; Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, and Michael A. Winkleman, for

appellant/cross-appellee.

Ross & Girten, and Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten; Foreman

Friedman, and Jeffrey E. Foreman, Noah D. Silverman and Rachael Mitchell

Fagenson, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Before WELLS and LOGUE, JJ., and LEVY, Senior Judge.

WELLS, Judge.
Giovanna Settimi Caraffa, as personal representative for the estate of

Benedetto Emanuelle Caraffa, appeals a final judgment in favor of the defendant

below, Carnival Corporation. Finding no merit, we affirm the final judgment and

therefore find no need to address, and do not address, Carnival Corporation’s

cross-appeal.

Affirmed.

2
§ 532.2 Application for inspection; information to be furnished; grant or refusal of Inspection; conditions for receiving inspection; official numbers and inspection; assignment and authorities of Program employees. ( a ) Application for inspection is as required by 9 CFR 304.1.
( b ) Information to be furnished is as required by 9 CFR 304.2(a), (b), and (c)(1). Conditions for receiving inspection, including having written Sanitation SOPs, HACCP plans and written recall procedures, are as required by 9 CFR 304.3. *(c) Official numbers; inauguration of inspection; withdrawal of inspection; reports of violation.* The requirements for assignment of official numbers, inauguration of inspection, withdrawal of inspection, and reports of violations at fish processing establishments are as required by part 305 of this chapter for meat establishments.
*(d) Assignment and authorities of program employees.* The requirements concerning the assignment and authorities of Program employees at fish processing establishments are as required by parts 306 and 307 of this chapter with respect to Program employees at meat establishments.
# C_2012138EN.01002602.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/26

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Bowles, Larue and Whitehead v ECB

(Case F-114/10) (1)

(Staff case - Staff of the ECB - General adjustment to salaries - Method of calculation - Provisional data - Economic and financial crisis - Special circumstances - Act adversely affecting an official - Pay slip - Provisional act)

(2012/C 138/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Carlos Bowles, Emmanuel Larue and Sarah Whitehead (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and M. López Torres, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicants’ salary slips for January 2010 and the following months in so far as they apply a salary increase of 2 % as a result of the 2010 salary adjustment procedure and compensation for the material loss suffered by the applicants

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the European Central Bank to increase by 2 % the remuneration of C. Bowles, E. Larue and S. Whitehead from 1 January 2010, as stated on their salary slips for January 2010 and the following months; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the European Central Bank to increase by 2 % the remuneration of C. Bowles, E. Larue and S. Whitehead from 1 January 2010, as stated on their salary slips for January 2010 and the following months;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Central Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p. 37.

---
§ 71.16 Inspection and certification of poultry or other animals for interstate movement. ( a ) *Assistance and facilities.* When poultry or other animals are to be inspected and certified by an APHIS representative, assistance and proper facilities for restraining them shall be provided in order that a careful inspection may be made, and the representative while making the inspection shall not be interfered with in any manner; otherwise inspection will be immediately discontinued.
( b ) *Certificates and other statements to accompany shipments.* Whenever inspection or treatment and the issuance of a certificate, statement, test chart, or other writing showing the performance of such inspection or treatment and the result thereof is required by any of the regulations in this subchapter as a condition precedent to the movement interstate of any poultry or other animal or class of poultry or other animals, or any poultry or other animal or class of poultry or other animals is so required to be accompanied in interstate movement by such certificate, statement, test chart, or other writing, no such poultry or other animal or poultry or other animals shall be moved interstate unless and until the following requirements are also complied with: ( 1 ) In the case of such movement by a common carrier issuing waybills or other form or forms of billing covering the movement, the said certificate, statement, test chart, or other writing shall be delivered to such carrier at the time the poultry or other animal or poultry or other animals are delivered for shipment, and shall become the property of the carrier, and be by such carrier attached to the billing covering the transportation of such poultry or other animal or poultry or other animals, and accompany such billing to destination, and be filed with such billing for future reference.
( 2 ) In case of such movement otherwise than by common carrier issuing waybills or other form or forms of billing, the said certificate, statement, test chart, or other writing shall accompany the poultry or other animal or poultry or other animals to destination and be delivered to the consignees, or, in case the consignor and consignee is the same person, to the first purchaser purchasing during or after such movement in interstate commerce, or to the person to whom the poultry or other animal or poultry or other animals are delivered.
[28 FR 5937, June 13, 1963, as amended at 34 FR 15642, Oct. 9, 1969; 55 FR 11156, Mar. 27, 1990; 55 FR 15320, Apr. 23, 1990; 62 FR 27934, May 22, 1997]
```

[110th Congress Public Law 25]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ025.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 102]]

Public Law 110-25
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse and 
 customhouse located at 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, as 
the ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States Courthouse and 
            Customhouse''. <<NOTE: May 8, 2007 -  [S. 521]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse and customhouse 
located at 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse and Customhouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse and customhouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to 
be a reference to the ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse and Customhouse''.

    Approved May 8, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 521 (H.R. 187):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Apr. 10, considered and passed Senate.
            Apr. 23, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2011204EN.01002902.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/29

---

Order of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission

(Case T-385/10) (1)

1

2011/C 204/53

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

---
#### Givi Kobiashvilli et al., Respondents, v Mitchell Hill et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant, and Valange Garage Services, Inc., Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 234]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Mitchell Hill and Central Queens Properties Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated November 9, 2001, which denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them is granted.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on some food substance on an exterior, downhill ramp leading to a garage which was located in the basement level of an apartment building. On their motion for summary judgment, the appellants established prima facie that they did not create the allegedly dangerous condition and did not have actual notice of it. On the question of constructive notice, they established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that “the length of time for which the [defect] existed was unknown” *(Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc.,*31 AD3d 409, 410 [2006]), and a finding that the debris was present for a sufficient length of time to be discovered would be pure speculation *(see DeLeon v New York City Tr. Auth.,*5 AD3d 531 [2004]).

There is no evidence in this record that the nature of the establishment required frequent inspections for debris *(see Yioves v T.J. Maxx, Inc.,*29 AD3d 572 [2006]; *Britto v Great Atl.*
      *747
      *& Pac. Tea Co., Inc.,*21 AD3d 436 [2005]; *Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc.,*12 AD3d 409 [2004]; *Tucci v Stewart’s Ice Cream Co.,*296 AD2d 650 [2002]; *Altieri v Golub Corp.,*292 AD2d 734 [2002]; *Mancini v Quality Mkts.,*256 AD2d 1177 [1998]). On the question of a recurring condition, the plaintiffs bore the burden of submitting evidence that the appellants had actual notice of such a condition *(see Stone v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr.,*302 AD2d 376 [2003]). The injured plaintiff’s conclusory statements in his affidavit were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on that issue *(see Grottano v City of New York,*304 AD2d 713 [2003]).

Accordingly, the appellants were entitled to summary judgment.

The appellant’s arguments with respect to that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on that part of their cross claim which was asserted by the defendant Central Queens Properties Corp. for contractual indemnification against the defendant Valange Garage Services, Inc., are not properly before us on this appeal as that branch of the motion remains pending and undecided *(see Katz v Katz,*68 AD2d 536 [1979]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
### §9035. Deputy Chiefs of Staff and Assistant Chiefs of Staff

(a) The Deputy Chiefs of Staff and the Assistant Chiefs of Staff shall be general officers detailed to those positions.

(b) The Secretary of the Air Force shall prescribe the number of Deputy Chiefs of Staff and Assistant Chiefs of Staff, for a total of not more than eight positions.

(Added Pub. L. 99–433, title V, §522(e), Oct. 1, 1986, 100 Stat. 1062, §8035; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title IX, §902(c), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 273; renumbered §9035, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(c), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1833.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 8035 of this title as this section.

2008—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–181 amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: "The number of Deputy Chiefs of Staff and Assistant Chiefs of Staff shall be prescribed by the Secretary, except that—

"(1) there may not be more than five Deputy Chiefs of Staff; and

"(2) there may not be more than three Assistant Chiefs of Staff."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
#### § 431.12 Recall procedure.

Establishments must prepare and maintain a current procedure for the recall of all canned product covered by this subpart. Upon request, the recall procedure must be made available to Program employees for review.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Registrant

 

SangStat Atlantique S.A.S.

IMTIX-SangStat S.A.S.

SangStat Luxembourg S.à.r.l.

IMTIX-SangStat Netherlands BV

IMTIX-SangStat GmbH 

IMTIX-SangStat (Switzerland) GmbH

SangStat Spain S.L. 

IMTIX-SangStat Austria GmbH

IMTIX-SangStat Italy Srl

SangStat Canada, Ltd.

SangStat U.K., Ltd

SangStat Medical International Cayman 

SangStat Netherlands BV 

Chronimmune Pharmaceuticals

Human Organ Sciences

The Transplant Pharmacy, Inc. 

XenoStat, Inc. 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30690

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ALEX KIRBY ANDERSON, also known as Gmb Tutru Anderson,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:16-CR-269-1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alex Kirby Anderson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 78 

months of imprisonment. He appeals that sentence, arguing that in light of 

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), his previous conviction under 

a Louisiana statute, LA. STAT. 40:966(A)(1), for possession with intent to 

distribute a controlled substance, does not qualify as a controlled substance 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 9, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30690 Document: 00514787607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2019
No. 17-30690

2

offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). He therefore contends that the district court 

erred in applying the enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3).

Because Anderson did not object to the base offense level in the district 

court, our review is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 

U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To establish plain error, Anderson must show, among 

other things, a forfeited error that is clear or obvious. See id. Anderson has 

not shown that his challenge to the calculation of his base offense level under 

§ 2K2.1(a)(3) is not subject to reasonable dispute. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-30690 Document: 00514787607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2019
2015 CROP YEAR

NON-IRRIGATED SOYBEANS

YIELD EXCLUSION (YE)

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic

Ocean

Pacific

Ocean

-130° -120° -110° -100° -90° -80° -70°

45° 40° 35° 30° 25°

Coordinate System: Albers

Central Meridian: 96°0'0"W

1st Std Parallel: 20°0'0"N

2nd Std Parallel: 60°0'0"N

Latitude of Origin: 40°0'0"N

Metadata:

County Files - US Census Tiger

Files 2013

YE Coverage - USDA - RMA

December 2014

0 125 250 500 750 1,000

Miles

STATEMENT

The Maps produced represent

the number of years (since 1995)

eligible for yield exclusion for the

2015 crop year.

Document Path: K:\APH\NonIrrigated\Soybeans\Non-IrrigatedSoybeans.mxd

TABLE

Links directly to the state table

(double click)

Number of Years Eligible for

Yield Exclusion (YE)

0 years

1 year

2 to 4 years

5 to 7 years

8 to 10 years

11 to 15 years
§ 381.78 Condemnation of carcasses and parts: separation of poultry suspected of containing biological residues. ( a ) At the time of any inspection under this subpart each carcass, or any part thereof, which is found to be adulterated shall be condemned, except that any such articles which may be made not adulterated by reprocessing, need not be so condemned if so reprocessed under the supervision of an inspector and thereafter found to be not adulterated.
( b ) When a lot of poultry suspected of containing biological residues is inspected in an official establishment, all carcasses and any parts of carcasses in such lot which are condemned shall be kept separate from all other condemned carcasses or parts.
[37 FR 9706, May 16, 1972, as amended at 48 FR 22899, May 23, 1983; 48 FR 23807, May 27, 1983]