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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 10, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and imposing sentence upon him as a second felony offender. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered. The appellant and two codefendants were jointly indicted and jointly tried. After all the defendants had rested, appellant’s counsel asked the court for permission to interview a codefendant who he had reason to believe was willing to testify in appellant’s favor. The court asked the codefendant’s counsel if he would permit his client to be questioned; counsel refused. Appellant’s counsel urged the court to ask the codefendant if he was willing to be questioned or to testify but the court treated the refusal of the eodefendant’s counsel as dispositive of the matter. We think this was reversible error. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor (U. S. Const., 6th Arndt.; Civil Rights Law, § 12). As stated by the Court of Appeals: “ Notwithstanding the strong evidence against defendant and the possibility or even a probability that Mrs. Jessmer would refuse to answer questions if sworn as a witness, we are of the opinion that the error in refusing to order her to be produced in court is not such a technical error as does not affect defendant’s substantial rights ” *(People*v. *Wells,*272 N. Y. 215, 216-217). Moreover, in the instant case the codefendant had testified in the Felony Court that appellant was not involved in the crime. At the time appellant’s counsel asked for permission to interview the codefendant, the said counsel stated that he believed the codefendant wished to testify; that the codefendant had been joined only to prevent the statement he had made in the Felony Court from being put before the jury; and that by reason of the fact that the codefendant’s counsel was offering no defense and *883taking no part in the trial it was clear that the Assistant District Attorney would permit the codefendant to plead to a lesser offense at a subsequent time. We think the record clearly supports these contentions. At the outset, it should have been apparent to the Assistant District Attorney that a joint trial would impair appellant’s substantial rights and prevent a fair trial as to him (cf. *People*v. *Schwarz,*10 A D 2d 17 [First Dept.]; *People*v. *Lowry,*8 A D 2d 956 [Second Dept.]). In the interests of justice a new trial is required. Appellant also contends that a failure to comply with section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires reversal. Under the rule recently announced by this court *(People ex rel. Schlesinger*v. *Fay,*19 A D 2d 632) that contention is untenable. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

________________

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY and ) 

GFA BRANDS, INC., ) 

) Nos. 1:12-cv-01508 

Plaintiffs, ) 1:12-cv-01509 

 v. ) 1:12-cv-01511 

) 1:12-cv-01513 

KEEBLER CO.; ) 

FAMOUS AMOS CHOCOLATE CHIP ) 

COOKIE COMPANY, LLC; ) 

MURRAY BISCUIT CO. LLC; ) Judge Richard A. Posner. 

VOORTMAN COOKIES LTD.; ) 

BREMNER FOOD GROUP, INC.; ) 

COOKIE SPECIALTIES INC.; ) 

TOPCO ASSOCIATES LLC; ) 

and NESTLÉ USA, INC., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. )

 

 ORDER OF JANUARY 11, 2013 

The parties’ Daubert motions have raised two questions concerning the proper 

construction of the patents in this case: 

(1) Many of the numerical ranges and ratios in the claims express the quantity of specific 

fatty acids as a percentage of the weight of the blended fat composition. My Markman

order of August 24, 2012 addresses the denominator in these ratios, stating that the 

weight of the fat composition “describes the constituents’ weight in terms of the weight 

of the triglycerides in the blended fat composition.” My order does not address the 

numerator, the weight of the fatty acids themselves. Fatty acids contain a hydroxide 

molecule that is lost when fatty acids combine with glycerol to form a triglyceride. The 

Daubert challenge to Dr. Peter J.H. Jones raise the question of whether the weight of the 

hydroxide molecule should be included in the weight of the fatty acid. The plaintiffs 
correctly argue that this is a question of claim construction rather than, as the 

defendants have suggested, a question of the reliability of Dr. Jones’s methodology. 

(2) My Markman order also defined the term “margarine” in the ‘192 patent as “a butter 

substitute, having flavorings or other additives, that constitutes an emulsion with a 

water phase and an oil phase.” But I did not resolve whether a margarine, as a butter 

substitute, must be a “stable” emulsion—that is, whether the water and oil must remain 

evenly dispersed for a certain period of time before separating. The Daubert challenges 

to Mr. Harold R. Russell and Mr. Allan Roden raise the question of whether the patent, 

as construed in the Markman order, requires a margarine to remain stable, and if so for 

how long. 

The parties are ordered to simultaneously brief these two questions of claim 

construction by Monday, January 14. The deadline to file summary judgment motions 

is extended to Tuesday, January 29. All other deadlines remain the same. 

 

 United States Circuit Judge 

January 11, 2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1064

ZAFAR KHAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

POPEYES OF MARYLAND, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey, II, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-1478-H)

Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zafar Khan, Appellant Pro Se. Leonard Henry Pazulski, CHARLES E.

CHLAN & ASSOCIATES, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Zafar Khan appeals the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to the Appellee in his discrimination action. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Khan v. Popeyes of Maryland, Inc., No. CA-01-1478-

H (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2002). We deny Khan’s motion for appointment of

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.9


     On November 4, 1999,  the Company  entered  into a lease,  as tenant,  with
Venture Hackensack Holding,  Inc., as landlord,  for approximately 22,500 square
feet of office space located at One University  Plaza,  Hackensack,  New Jersey.
The lease expires on March 31, 2010. The rent is currently $30,060 per month and
will  increase  to $34,835  per month  from the 61st month  until the end of the
term.







                                       48
#### Westhill Exports, Limited, Respondent, v. Generoso Pope, Jr., et al., Appellants.

Order entered on November 27, 1961, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff alleged that it was employed by defendants to procure for them a 10-year contract which would provide defendants with a supply of newsprint, and that plaintiff would be *897paid a commission of 3% of Um gross sales, payable by the seller. It is further alleged that plaintiff found a seller willing to sell at defendants’ terms but that defendants refused to consummate the transaction. However, plaintiff’s contract with defendants is incorporated in a letter dated January 26, 1959, which is annexed to the complaint. We must look at this letter for the nature of the agreement rather than plaintiff’s allegations as to its import. On its face, it discloses an authorization for plaintiff to begin negotiations and not a contract of employment, unconditionally binding defendants to enter into a contract with a seller plaintiff might obtain. Fairly read, the letter reserves to defendants the right to accept or reject any proposed contract plaintiff would secure and, therefore, defendants’ rejection of a proposed contract did not ground the action for breach of agreement which is attempted to be alleged in the complaint. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente and Stevens, JJ.; Breitel and Steuer, JJ., dissent in part in the following memorandum: We find the complaint defective in one respect. It fails to allege that the mill procured by plaintiff was not only willing to supply defendants’ needs as outlined in the letter of January 26, 1959, but able to so perform. With such an allegation, a cause of action would be stated *(Ackman*v. *Taylor,*296 N. Y. 597). Consequently, while we agree that the complaint should have been dismissed, an opportunity to replead to supply this deficiency should be afforded. In our opinion the letter referred to does not negative the allegation of a hiring and may be shown to be consistent with it.
DARYL LAMAR BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1880

___________________________/

Opinion filed September 9, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Ross Goodman, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Kristen Bonjour, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., CONCUR.
#### 2446.502-70 Contract clause.

The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.246-70, Inspection and Acceptance, in all solicitations and contracts.

[71 FR 2437, Jan. 13, 2006]
o

,:aE

IE=E O E O'r1 Bigi !

"osIIi -DUA#

agP;I 324i

g)-l^J os2-o

E*Eci

Tffi8n

TUs!mz

lo<TTTo6nt

T- ])@zc>@l=mfr

CAo)a moo !

.t ;Y)0 I

4-:

?==-,--

?oV-'-.:---

--S- l):---- O--,:-

--> 

--- 

2

4v---

Yo==----

--4

!-oI{

(i

trn

.r -.r I )5

Fi

F4Fz

Ft c

(t) tIz-\J

tr, -

'3,

.';l

.lil

'i,r

ii

F,l3

Fl t!

Q,

fr,

UtrI

H,

>ffi Ef E
zc-3)

El

l-,1FaZ-AEirl

E-( ilA

fEl A-
H

H

H H

H

H

H H

î î

î

î

îî

î

î

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

3400

RANCH ROAD 192

TEXAS

UNITED

STATES

OF

AMERICA

ESTAD

OS

U

NID

O

S

MEXICANOS

HUDSPETH CO

Rio Grande

Oxbow

Lake

Oxbow

Lake

Neely

Canyon

OE S

Indian Hot

Springs

Schroder

Arroyo

Cedar

Arroyo

Schroder

Arroyo

OE S

34

4

22'

59

105°

45'

55

105°

4 4

34

000m

30"

10

4 30°

34

25'

52' 4

FEET

FEET

59

14

34

000m

000

15

06

14

4

000m

105°

30"

30"

12

05

34

08

34

10

34

58

34

4

09

03

30"

30'

47'

000m 4

10

34

55

4

25'

07

FEET

34

12

34

54 62

30°

10

30°

N

04

310

30°

27'

50'

000

FEET 4

N

34

34

34

62

4

30"

47'

34

08

04

53

34

30"

000

34

E 4 4

45'

54 52'

13

27'

11

710

58

11

03 34

06

34

30"

61

34 34

105°

63 680

000

280

E

05

34

07

57

34

34

4

09

63

22'

13

61 4

53 4 57

30"

34

30' 4

15

4

50'

34

TEXAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

SCHRODER ARROYO OE S QUADRANGLE

TEXAS-CHIHUAHUA

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

SCHRODER ARROYO OE S, TX-CHH

2012

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Imagery...............................................NAIP, August 2010

Roads..............................................©2006-2012 TomTom

Names..........................................................GNIS, 2012

Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008

Boundaries....................Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2012

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 13R

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Texas Coordinate System of 1983 (central

zone)

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.7

CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

DQ

13R

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2012 MAGNETIC NORTH

DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 13 ́

4 MILS

8° 14 ́

146 MILS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Chad Therapeutics, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-93734) on Form S-8 of Chad Therapeutics, Inc. of our report dated May 7,
1999, relating to the balance sheets of Chad Therapeutics, Inc. as of March 31,
1999 and 1998, and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31,
1999, which report appears in the March 31, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of
Chad Therapeutics, Inc.


KPMG LLP


Los Angeles, California
June 21, 1999
#### 23.502 Solicitation provision.

The provision at 52.223-22, Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation, is required only when 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is included in the solicitation (see 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications).
Exhibit 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Name                                                 State of Formation
------------------------------------------------     ------------------
Connecticut Storage Fund........................         California
PS Co-Investment Partners.......................         California
PS Illinois Trust...............................          Delaware
PS Insurance Company - Hawaii, Ltd..............           Hawaii
PS Orangeco, Inc...............................          California
PS Partners, Ltd................................         California
PS Partners VIII, Ltd...........................         California
PS Texas Holdings, Ltd. ........................           Texas
PSA Institutional Partners, L.P.................         California
PSAC Development Partners, L.P. ................         California
Public Storage Properties IV, Ltd...............         California
Public Storage Properties V, Ltd................         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund...............         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund III...........         California
Public Storage Pickup & Delivery, L.P...........         California
Secure Mini Storage.............................          Minnesota
STOR-Re Mutual Insurance Corporation............           Hawaii
Storage Trust Properties, L.P. .................          Delaware
Awards and Recipients

Since its establishment in 1973, a considerable number of projects sponsored  by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) have garnered  national and international awards. Several of these projects have been highlighted  in publications such as *The Chronicle for Higher Education*, *The New  York Times*, The League for Innovation in the Community College's *League  TLC*, and *Science* Magazine, among others. 

Many more projects have received recognition through additional grants and  honors at the state and local level. Because the number of state and local awards  is too large to maintain on this Web site, the list below includes only national  and international awards beginning in 1992. The list also provides links to project  descriptions in the FIPSE online grant database, as well as links to general award  information on the awarding organizations' websites. Because the list is neither  complete nor comprehensive, we invite current and former FIPSE grantees to bring  to our attention additional national and international awards that they have received.

## FIPSE and the Paul Simon Awards

Two of the four 2009 Paul Simon Awards made by NAFSA: Association of International Educators went to projects that cited their FIPSE funding as instrumental to their development.   Through its **Senator Paul Simon Award for Comprehensive Internationalization**, NAFSA recognizes institutions for overall excellence in internationalization efforts as evidenced in practices, structures, philosophies, and policies.  Recipients of the Senator Paul Simon Award will be profiled in the 2010 edition of **Internationalizing the Campus: Profiles of Success at Colleges and Universities**, a NAFSA report on successful models of campus internationalization.

In their submission, the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities cited their 2000 FIPSE Comprehensive grant entitled “Using Study Abroad to Internationalize Professional Degree Programs at the Undergraduate Level"  as contributing to their ability to "overcome numerous challenges, maximize strategic new program investments, significantly increase the number of international and study abroad students, and encourage on-campus collaboration, all with the goal of advancing the internationalization of the university."

Portland State University was recognized for “developing new models of international learning for non-traditional students – older, part-time, and predominate place-bound.”  They cited support they received as a partner on the American Council on Education’s 2004 FIPSE Comprehensive grant entitled "Lessons Learned in Assessing International Learning."

## FIPSE Award-winning Projects, FY 1992 - FY 2011

- Chronological Listing    MS Excel  (130K) |  PDF  (272K)

## National Award Programs - Links to Application Information

-   MS Excel  (42K) |  PDF  (23K)

Top
On March 8, 2013, OCR resolved a proactive compliance review initiated against the South Carolina Technical College System (System), South Carolina.  OCR’s  investigation revealed that the websites operated by the System and two of its  member colleges were not readily accessible to persons who are blind, have low vision, or have other print-related disabilities.  OCR determined that the sites were not in compliance with two federal laws enforced by the Department of Education -- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the  Americans with Disabilities Act.  The System agreed, by  entering into a voluntary resolution agreement, to ensure that the SCTCS website and the websites of all the colleges within the system are accessible to students with disabilities,  to develop a resource guide that provides information about web accessibility requirements, standards, and links to reference materials, and to review and monitor the colleges’ websites.

Read the Press Release | *Read    the Resolution Letter*MS WORD (76K)    | *Read    the Resolution Agreement*PDF (165K)

Top
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14

February 24, 2000


John E. Calonico, Jr.
301 Laurel Avenue
Millbrae, California 94030


Re:    Employment Terms


Dear John,

Blue Martini Software, Inc. ("BMS") is pleased to offer you the position of
Chief Financial Officer on the terms as described in your offer letter dated
March 10, 2000.  In addition to the letter referenced, your employment includes
the following term:

 .  if you are terminated from BMS without cause at any time in your employment,
   you will be eligible to receive a severance payment equal to 6 months of your
   base salary at the time of termination. If you resign from the company at any
   point, a severance payment will not be paid. This severance payment will be
   your only benefit or payment upon termination, and you will not be entitled
   to any additional stock vesting upon termination of employment for any
   reason. "Cause" shall mean the occurrence of one or more of the following:
   (i) your conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude or
   dishonesty; (ii) your participation in a fraud or act of dishonesty against
   the Company; (iii) your intentional and material damage to the Company's
   property; or (iv) a material breach by you of this Agreement, the Company's
   written policies, or the Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions
   Agreement that is not remedied by you within fourteen (14) days of written
   notice of such breach from the Board. It shall be a condition to your receipt
   of such severance that you enter into a release agreement acceptable to the
   Company.

We look forward to your favorable reply and to a productive and enjoyable
working relationship.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Monte Zweben

Monte Zweben
CEO and President

I accept the employment terms stated in this letter, and expect to commence
employment on February 24, 2000.


 /s/ John Calonico Jr.
----------------------------------
Candidate's Signature

Date:  2/24/00
     -----------------------------
#### 2432.006-1 General.

The Senior Procurement Executive is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 32.006-1. In accordance with FAR 32.006-1(c), the Senior Procurement Executive may delegate the remedy coordination official duties to personnel in the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer at or above the Level IV of the Executive Service.

[77 FR 73530, Dec. 10, 2012]
Exhibit
10.(r)  AMENDMENT TO THE DNB FINANCIAL
CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL
EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR WILLIAM S. LATOFF  (As Amended and
Restated Effective April 1, 2007)  THIS AMENDMENT is made this eighth day of December, 2008,
by DNB Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Company).  W I T N E S S E T H:  WHEREAS, the Company adopted the DNB Financial
Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for William S. Latoff, as
last amended and restated effective April 1, 2007 (the Plan);  WHEREAS, Section 9.01
of the Plan provides that the Company may amend the Plan during Mr. Latoffs
life only with his express, written consent; and  WHEREAS, the Company deems it necessary and desirable
to amend the Plan to accelerate the schedule for vesting of benefits accrued by
Mr. Latoff (the Executive) under the Plan.  NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by revising
Section 4.01 thereof to read as follows, effective as of the first date
written above:  For purposes of this Plan, the Executive shall have a vested interest
in the balance of the Account of forty percent (40%) as of the Effective
Date.  Thereafter, the Executives vested
interest in the balance of the Account shall be determined in accordance with
the following schedule, provided that the Executive remains employed,
continuously, by the Company or the Bank through the dates indicated:  Date
  
  Vested PercentageDecember 15, 2007
  
  60
  %October 1, 2008
  
  76
  %November 1, 2008
  
  85
  %December 1, 2008
  
  94
  %January 1, 2009
  
  95
  %February 1, 2009
  
  96
  %March 1, 2009
  
  97
  %April 1, 2009
  
  98
  %May 1, 2009
  
  99
  %June 1, 2009
  
  100
  %


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this
amendment to be executed by its authorized officers on the date first above
written.  ATTEST:
  DNB FINANCIAL
  CORPORATIONBy:   I, William S. Latoff, hereby consent to the amendment
of the DNB Financial Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for
William S. Latoff, as last amended and restated effective April 1, 2007,
as set forth herein.   signature  2