alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ludwig Obermeier et al., Appellants, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 40912.)

Herlihy, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims on the grounds that the amount awarded, in a land appropriation action, for consequential damage is inadequate. The total award was $14,000 and the court made a finding that the direct damage amounted to $7,000. We axe of the opinion that the amount awarded ($7,000) for consequential damage should be increased to $15,000. The court found that after the taking, the State line was within 30 feet of the northeast corner of the claimants’ house; that several large trees, a portion of the lawn and several flower beds were destroyed and that as a result of the appropriation there was consequential damage to the residence. The State answers these findings by admitting the taking to within 30 feet of the claimants’ house but argues that the highway itself is over 200 feet therefrom and that the paved portion in the future will not come any closer to the residence than presently located. This unique parcel was reasonably well secluded, including a tree lined driveway and other distinctive features which categorize it as selective residential property. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, so as to increase the award to $22,000, with appropriate interest, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Louis Dickstein, Petitioner, v State Tax Commission, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the State Tax Commission, which sustained an unincorporated business tax assessment against petitioner imposed under article 23 of the Tax Law for the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. Petitioner is a ladies handbag salesman deriving approximately two thirds of his income from the sales of products of Jax Handbag Sales, Inc. (Jax), and the balance from two noncompeting lines. He was paid on a straight commission basis without deductions for withholding or Social Security. He provided his own hospitalization and retirement programs. All sales consummated by petitioner were subject to approval by Jax, who also prescribed the territory in which petitioner could operate and what other lines he could represent in that area. In short, petitioner’s situation is not unlike the factual pattern presented in *Matter of Liberman v Gallman*(41 NY2d 774), wherein a similar assessment was sustained although there were facts indicating the exercise of a degree of control over the activities of a company sales representative. There, as here, the record could support a contrary conclusion, but that is not the measure of our scope of review. The record contains sufficient facts which, along with the inferences which may reasonably be drawn from them, support the commission’s determination. Accordingly, we must confirm *(Matter of Liberman v Gallman, supra).*Petitioner further contends that respondent is bound by a prior determina*1034tion of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that petitioner was an employee of Jax for purposes of unemployment insurance assessments. Although apparently inconsistent, it is settled law that an administrative determination under one statute is not binding on another agency when the same question arises under another statute (see *Matter of Croshier v Levitt,*5 NY2d 259; *Matter of Snyder v New York State Employees’ Retirement System,*43 AD2d 871, mot for lv to app den 34 NY2d 519). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.
6101.15 Depositions [Rule 15]. ( a ) *Generally.* Unless otherwise ordered, parties may take depositions after service of the answer. If the parties agree in writing on the deponent, time, place, recording method, and maximum duration of a deposition, no formal deposition notice is needed. The Board may order a deposition on motion under Rule 8 (48 CFR 6101.8) or by subpoena under Rule 16 (48 CFR 6101.16).
( b ) *Use.* Parties may use deposition testimony in a case to the extent that would be permitted by Rule 32(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
( c ) *To perpetuate testimony.* If the Board has decided a case, and either the time to appeal has not expired or an appeal has been taken, the Board may for good cause grant leave to take a deposition as if the case were still before the Board in order to preserve testimony for possible further proceedings before the Board.
47.305-2 Solicitations f.o.b. origin and f.o.b. destination—lowest overall cost. ( a ) Solicitations, when appropriate, shall specify that offers may be f.o.b. origin, f.o.b. destination, or both; and that they will be evaluated on the basis of the lowest overall cost to the Government.
( b ) When offers are solicited on the basis of both f.o.b. origin and f.o.b. destination, the contracting officer shall insert in solicitations the provision at 52.247-45, F.o.b. Origin and/or F.o.b. Destination Evaluation.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Teknowledge Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis A. Bugbee, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that:

| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and                         | 
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |     |  |                                                                                                                                                      | 
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. | 

|Date: | March 31, 2003 |  | By:/s/ Dennis A. Bugbee | 
|----- | -------------- |  | ----------------------- | 
|      |                |  | Dennis A. Bugbee        | 
|      |                |  | Vice President Finance, | 
|      |                |  | Chief Financial Officer | 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### Evelyn Pfaffenbach, Respondent, v. White Plains Express Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury sustained as the result of a collision between the truck of the defendant White Plains Express Corp. and an automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger, the said defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 2, 1963 after trial upon a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff against it. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and complaint dismissed, without costs. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. The evidence showed that appellant’s truck skidded from the southbound lane in which it had been proceeding, into the northbound lane in which the automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger was proceeding. However, there is no evidence that the skid was caused either by a defective condition of the truck or by negligence in its operation. Under the circumstances, plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case *(Lo Piccolo*v. *Knight of Rest Prods. Corp.,*7 A D 2d 369, affd. 9 N Y 2d 662; *Gooch*v. *Shapiro,*7 A D 2d 307, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1088). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Rabin, JJ., concur; Hill, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, in view of the weather and road conditions prevailing at the time of the accident, namely: snow and rain falling with an accumulation of one foot of snow, on a narrow two-lane road with the white dividing line covered by the snow, the road slushy and slippery, and with the headlights of all cars lit, the proof clearly was sufficient to establish a prima facie case and to present for the jury’s determination issues of fact as to whether, apart from the skidding, the defendant corporation was negligent. On the basis of all the proof and bearing in mind the unusual weather and road conditions prevailing, the jury was clearly justified in drawing any one or all of the following inferences: (1) that the defendant corporation’s truck was going too fast; or (2) that the operator of the truck jammed the brakes on suddenly and with full force instead of applying them slowly and gently; or (3) that the said defendant permitted its truck to be operated by an incompetent chauffeur; or (4) that the truck was being Operated in violation of law. since there was evidence that, the chauffeur’s license had been revoked. In its charge to the jury the trial court in effect presented the case to the jury on this basis; such presentation was proper and under all the circumstances the jury’s verdict may not be disturbed as a matter of law.
#### 6106.602 Authority [Rule 602].

The Board is authorized by section 423 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5189a(d), to arbitrate disputes between applicants and FEMA as to eligibility for public assistance (or repayment of past public assistance) for a disaster post-dating January 1, 2016, when the disputed amount exceeds $500,000 or, for an applicant in a rural area, is at least $100,000.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Evidence and Innovation 
            -  Teen Pregnancy Prevention Evidence Review 
            -           PPRER0Z22019B      

# PPRER0Z22019B

Espada, J. P., Escribano, S., Morales, A.,  Orgil's, M. (2017). Two-Year Follow-Up of a Sexual Health Promotion Program for Spanish Adolescents. Evaluation  the Health Professions, 40(4), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278716652217

N/ADid not meet the review's screening criteria
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the                Report. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                David J. Cade                                                          |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | David                J. Cade                                                              |
|   | Principal                Executive Officer and Principal                Financial Officer |
|   | May                18, 2007                                                               |
|   |                                                                                      |

----

----
#### Emilio RODRIGUEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-60843

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2007.

Yalila Estela Guerrero, Guerrero & Big-gar, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, John Clifford Cunningham, Holly Michele Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Peter D. Keisler, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Emilio Rodriguez-Hernandez petitions this court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision granting the respondent’s motion to pretermit Rodriguez-Hernandez’s request for a waiver of removal pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and ordering Rodriguez-Hernandez removed from the United States. Rodriguez-Hernandez contends that the BIA erred by determining that he was ineligible for relief pursuant to § 1182(c). The respondent moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief.

Rodriguez-Hernandez has not shown error in connection with the BIA’s determination that he had failed to establish his status as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. *See INS v. Phinpathya,*464 U.S. 183, 188 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. 584, 78 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984). He has concomitantly failed to carry his burden of showing that he is eligible for relief under former § 1182(c). *See Vo v. Gonzales,*482 F.3d 363, 366-70 (5th Cir.2007); *see also Ashby v. INS,*961 F.2d 555, 557 (5th Cir.1992). Rodriguez-Hernandez’s petition for review is DENIED. The respondent’s motion is likewise DENIED.

*

 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.
AFS

- 14

- 059

- E August 20, 2014

Mr. Michael D. Schiffer

Partner Al’s Aerial Spraying, LLC 3473 North Shepardsville Road Ovid, MI 48866

Dear Mr. Schiffer:

This is in response to your November 22, 2013 letter sent to the public docket ( No. FAA

- 201 0

- 0134 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Al’s Aerial Spraying, LLC (Al’s Aerial Spraying) for an extension and amendment to Exemption No. 10142 from § 137.51(b)(4)(i) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR)

. That exemption, if granted, would allow Al’s Aerial Spraying to use a single

engine turbopropeller

- powered Air Tractor aircraft to make turnarounds over congested areas in a loaded configuration.

The FAA decided to handle this request by initially grant ing the extension, with no change, to ensure continuity of operations. On April 21, 2014, the FAA granted the extension for

6

- months with the expiration date of October 31, 2014.

The FAA d etermined that good cause existed for publishing a summa ry of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested amendment of the exemption set a precedent. A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10601). The FAA received no comments.

Duri ng this 6

- month extension period, your local flight standards district office ( FSDO ) provide d expertise to evaluate your request to amend conditions and limitations numbered 5, 6, and 9 to be changed as follows: (1) the altitude over congested areas where a turnaround maneuver begins be reduced from 200 feet to 100 feet above ground level, and (2) the emergency landing area glide distance be increased from no more than 1 nautical mile to no

more than 1.4 nautical miles.2
The FSDO did not recommend approval of the requested amendments because Al’s Aerial Spraying submitted incorrect aircraft performance data. We understand that Al’s Aerial Spraying agreed to reevaluate and resubmit the data . Once Al’s Aerial Spraying has completed and submitted the correct data to the local FSDO, it can submit a new petition for exemption.

Therefore, w e are closing out your request for exemption due to the agreement of recalculating the aircraft manufacturing data.

Sincerely,

/s/

Carl N. Johnson Acting Deputy Manage r General Aviation and Commercial Division
Exhibit 10.2







Exhibit 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE RENTECH, INC. 2009 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN




THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE RENTECH, INC. 2009 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN, made as of November 2, 2009 (this
“Amendment”), is made and adopted by Rentech, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”).
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Plan
(as defined below).



WHEREAS, the Company maintains the 2009 Incentive Award Plan (the “Plan”);



WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 14 of the Plan, the Plan may be amended from time to time by the Company’s Board of
Directors (the “Board”); and



WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan be amended as follows, effective as of November 2, 2009:




	1.	 	Section 11.2, as it exists under the Plan immediately prior to the effectiveness of this Amendment, shall
continue to apply to all Awards granted under the Plan prior to the effectiveness of this Amendment. With respect
only to awards granted upon or after the effectiveness of this Amendment, Section 11.2 of the Plan is hereby
deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:






“11.2 Change in Control.



(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, in the event of a Change in Control, each outstanding Award
shall be assumed or an equivalent Award substituted by the surviving or successor corporation or a parent or subsidiary
of the surviving or successor corporation.



(b) In the event that the surviving or successor corporation in a Change in Control declines for any reason to
assume or provide an equivalent substitute for any Award, as determined by the pre-Change in Control Committee in its
sole discretion, the Committee shall cause all forfeiture restrictions applicable to such Award to lapse and such Award
shall become fully vested and, as applicable, exercisable immediately prior to the consummation of such transaction.
If an Award’s applicable forfeiture restrictions lapse and such Award becomes vested (and exercisable, as applicable)
in lieu of assumption or substitution of an equivalent award in connection with a Change in Control, the Committee
shall notify the Participant that the Award will be deemed to be exercised, if applicable, and, in any event, settled
upon the occurrence of the Change in Control, and the Award shall terminate upon the Change in Control in exchange for
payment of the consideration payable in the Change in Control for such fully vested (and exercised, if applicable)
Award.”



Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan and any awards outstanding thereunder
shall remain in full force and effect.”



[Signature page follows]





 


1









 









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company
as of the date first written above.




Rentech, Inc.




By: /s/ D. Hunt Ramsbottom                    

D. Hunt Ramsbottom

President and CEO




 


2
#### 52.203-17 Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights.

As prescribed in 3.906, insert the following clause:

# Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights (NOV 2023)

(a) This contract and employees working on this contract will be subject to the whistleblower rights and remedies established at 41 U.S.C. 4712 and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 3.900 through 3.905.

(b) The Contractor shall inform its employees in writing, in the predominant language of the workforce, of employee whistleblower rights and protections under 41 U.S.C. 4712, as described in FAR 3.900 through 3.905.

(c) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts.

(End of clause)

[88 FR 69522, Oct. 5, 2023]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Prevent Unsafe Drinking on Campus      

# Resource: Prevent Unsafe Drinking on Campus

This data visualization flyer (PDF, 1 page) illustrates heavy alcohol use and binge drinking statistics amongst college age youth to inform colleges and communities. **Learn more.**