alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
You Are Invited

To Join Us For...

United States Department of Agriculture

Food and Nutrition Service

The USDA is an equal opportunity 

employer and provider.

Eat Smart, Live Strong

Date/Time:

Place:

Contact:

Enjoy fun and lively activities with other older adults! 

Talk about easy ways to make smart food choices 

and exercise more. Learn how you can Eat Smart 

and Live Strong.

United States Department of Agriculture
You Are Invited

To Join Us For...

United States Department of Agriculture

Food and Nutrition Service

The USDA is an equal opportunity 

employer and provider.

Eat Smart, Live Strong

Date/Time:

Place:

Contact:

Enjoy fun and lively activities with other older adults! 

Talk about easy ways to make smart food choices 

and exercise more. Learn how you can Eat Smart 

and Live Strong.

United States Department of Agriculture
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Earl Wilson, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 671]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered December 22, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

During voir dire, the People moved, inter alia, to reinstate four prospective jurors who had been peremptorily challenged by the defendant, claiming that the defendant sought to challenge them on purely pretextual grounds *(see Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79 [1986]; *Georgia v McCollum,*505 US 42 [1992]; *People v Kern,*75 NY2d 638 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 824 [1990]). The defendant claimed that the explanations for the peremptory challenges were not pretextual, as the prospective jurors were victims of crimes. The trial court, after questioning each challenged prospective juror to determine whether he or she could assess the evidence without bias, found the defendant’s explanation to be pretextual and reinstated the four prospective jurors.

The trial court erred in rejecting the defendant’s peremptory challenges, as he put forth a nonpretextual reason based on questioning and facts adduced during voir dire *(see People v Bhupsingh,*297 AD2d 386, 387 [2002]; *People v Wilson,*224 AD2d 725, 726 [1996]). Indeed, a prospective juror’s status as a prior victim of a crime is a valid basis for a peremptory challenge as “[t]here is a rational basis for the suspicion that a crime victim might be less sympathetic to an accused criminal than would a person who has never been victimized by crime” *(People v Dixon,*202 AD2d 12, 18 [1994]). Furthermore, assurances from a challenged prospective juror that he or she could assess the evidence in a fair manner even though he or she was a crime victim are irrelevant to the determination of whether *683the basis of a peremptory challenge is pretextual *(see People v Walker,*216 AD2d 426, 427 [1995]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### Apgar Bros. v. Isner Estate et al.

*556
      *Linn Schantz,*for plaintiff.

*Butz, Hudders, Tollman & Rupp,*for defendant.

June 29, 1953.

Henninger, P. J.,

David Isner of Detroit, Mich., was the owner and operator of a tractor-trailer involved in an accident in Lehigh County on July 14, 1952, whereby a tractor-trailer of plaintiff’s was damaged to the extent of $4,500.

Isner died a few days later and on November 17, 1952, plaintiffs brought this action in foreign attachment, attaching defendant’s tractor and trailer in garnishee’s garage in Lehigh County.

Local counsel for the David Isner estate has petitioned the court to quash the writ because of the death of defendant, David Isner, prior to institution of the suit.

There is no doubt that the writ of foreign attachment does not lie against the estate of a deceased person. East Bangor Consolidated Slate Company v. Badger, 250 Pa. 422-23. Counsel in that case recognized the rule, but argued that it was archaic. The Supreme Court held then (in 1915) that the rule remained the law upon the acts then in force (Act of June 21, 1911, P. L. 1097).

Since then a new Foreign Attachment Act has been passed (Act of April 24, 1931, P. L. 44, 12 PS §2891), but its language is substantially the same as that of the earlier acts and it has been interpreted the same: Barrett v. First Mechanics National Bank et al., 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 366, 369.

This reasoning is further strengthened by the fact that the legislature, having provided that proceedings under the Domestic Attachment Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 606, 12 PS §2741 et seq., should not abate upon the death of defendant *after issuance of the attachment*(12 PS §2752), did not in reenacting the Foreign Attachment Act, see fit to provide for survival of the writ upon a defendant’s death.

*557In our case, the matter is one of the right to institute an action of foreign attachment after the death of a defendant and not that of abatement of an action begun in decedent’s lifetime, but the result would have been the same. Ionian Bank, Ltd., v. Mamatos et al., 340 Pa. 52, 55.

Under section 52(4) of the Statutory Construction Act of May 28,1937, P. L. 1019, 46 PS §552, the legislature is presumed to have accepted the judicial interpretation of the prior acts when it reenacted those provisions in the 1931 Act.

We find, therefore, that the earlier interpretations of the Foreign Attachment Acts prevail today and are binding on this court.

Now, June 29, 1953, defendant’s rule to quash the attachment heretofore issued in the above-captioned action is made absolute and it is ordered that the attachment be dissolved at plaintiff’s costs.
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 Agriculture

###### Natural Resources Conservation Service

# AGENCY:

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of proposed changes in the Virginia NRCS State Technical Guide for review and comment.

# SUMMARY:

It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for Virginia that changes must be made in the NRCS State Technical Guide specifically in practice standards: #356, Dike; #378, Pond; #402, Dam; #554, Draining Water Management; #587, Structure for Water Control; and #606, Subsurface Drain. These practices will be used to plan and install conservation practices on cropland, pastureland, woodland, and wildlife land.

# DATES:

Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with the date of this publication.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Inquire in writing to John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229-5014; Telephone number (804) 287-1691; Fax number (804) 287-1737. Copies of the practice standards will be made available upon written request to the address shown above or on the Virginia NRCS Web site:                         *http://www.va.nrcs.usda.gov/​technical/​draftstandards.html.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject standards.

Dated: July 21, 2009.

John A. Bricker,

State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Richmond, Virginia.

[FR Doc. E9-19014 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                          4639664
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64033
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                0
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  8988687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           0
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                      8755258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    8988687
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1497997
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1050738
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 428834
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             428834
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    428834
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0



</TABLE>
§ 36.3121(l)(10)-2 Identification. ( a ) *Domestic corporation.* A domestic corporation which has secured, or is required to secure, an identification number as an employer having in its employ one or more individuals in employment for wages is not required to secure an identification number under the regulations in this part.
( b ) *Employees.* Every employee performing services covered by an agreement shall have the same duties in respect of an account number as would be the case if the employee were performing services in employment for the domestic corporation.
Exhibit 10.3



 





Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT TO THE

TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC.

2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




     THIS AMENDMENT to the True Religion Apparel, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) has
been adopted by action of the Board of Directors of True Religion Apparel, Inc. (the
“Corporation”), on March 5, 2007, to be effective January 1, 2007 with respect to all shares of
Common Stock issued on or after January 1, 2007 under the Stock Issuance Program set forth in
Article Three of the Plan. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Section E of Article Five of the Plan, the
Corporation hereby amends the Plan in the following respects only:



     A. Subparagraph (2) of Paragraph 1 of Section B of Article Three of the Plan is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:




     (2) Subject to the provisions of Section A of Article Five, shares of Common Stock may
be issued under the Stock Issuance Program for any of the following items of consideration
that the Plan Administrator may deem appropriate in each individual instance:




     a) cash or certified check payable to the Corporation, or




     b) past services rendered to the Corporation (or any Parent or Subsidiary), or




     c) future services to be rendered to the Corporation (or any Parent or Subsidiary), or




     d) any other consideration that may be accepted for the issuance of shares under
applicable law.



     B. Except for the amendments set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officer on the date set forth below, but to be effective as indicated herein.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC.	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Michael Buckley
	 	Date:
	 	March 6, 2007
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name: Michael Buckley

Title: President
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GTECH Holdings Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 27, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I, W.
Bruce Turner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to sections 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 result of operations of the Company.



Date: January 5, 2005                   /s/ W. Bruce Turner
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        W. Bruce Turner
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bradley W. Crannell, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 822]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered March 29, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree.

Defendant was indicted on charges of criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree stemming from the recovery of nearly 15 pounds of marihuana from a limousine in which he had been an occupant for several hours on March 7, 2002. Following an unsuccessful motion to suppress the marihuana and his statement to police that it belonged to him, defendant, who was out on bail, absconded out of state. Ultimately, he was located and pleaded guilty to criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree in satisfaction of the indictment, as well as a bail jumping charge. He waived his right to appeal. Sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement as a second felony offender to 2V2 to 5 years in prison, defendant appeals.

Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal precludes the claims that his suppression motion was improperly denied *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Carroll,*21 AD3d 586 [2005]), that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing *(see People v Wright,*21 AD3d 583 [2005]; *770
      *People v Carroll,*supra) and that the agreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive *(see People v Clow,*10 AD3d 803, 804-805 [2004]). To the extent that defendant also challenges the voluntariness of his plea, claiming that he did not sufficiently admit to the facts underlying the crime, we note that he has failed to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction. Thus, this issue is unpreserved for our review *(see People v Rivera,*20 AD3d 763, 764 [2005]; *People v Bethea,*19 AD3d 813, 814 [2005]). In any event, our review of the plea allocution satisfies us that the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently and that defendant’s affirmative response to County Court’s questioning established a factual basis for the crime of which he was convicted *{see People v Rivera, supra; People v Mahar,*12 AD3d 715, 716 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
December 6, 2012

U.S. EPA

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Document Control Office (7407M)

Docket #EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0489

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

RE: Voluntary Request for Information Relating to Curing Rates for Polyurethane Products Intended to

Further React and Undergo “Curing” as Part of Their Commercial Use.

The Dow Coating Materials business uses aliphatic isocyanates in the manufacture of two types of

polyurethane polymers:

• Hydrophobically Modified Ethylene Oxide Urethane (HEUR) rheology modifiers

• Polyester polyol based urethane dispersions

The HEUR polyurethane polymers are reacted with an excess of “capping” alcohols to assure there are no

“free” isocyanate groups in the polymer backbone and the polymers are supplied in water further assuring

that there is no free isocyanate functionality. These modifiers are used at low levels in typical paint

formulations.

The polyester polyol based urethane polymers are made at high solids content in a solvent and then

dispersed in water where terminal isocyanate groups are chain extended with diamines. Being supplied in

water assures there is no free isocyanate functionality as any residual isocyanate reacts to form carbamic

acid and ultimately amine which will also react with any residual isocyanate. These urethane dispersions

are used in wood coating and leather applications.

As there are no isocyanate functional groups in either urethane polymer type there is no further reaction or

“curing” during end use.

Very truly yours,

Jeffrey H. Hafer

Product Sustainability Leader

Dow Coating Materials

(215) 619-5552/Fax#(215) 619-1675

jhafer@dow.com

This information is considered accurate and reliable as of the date appearing above and is presented in good faith. Because use conditions and applicable

laws may differ from one location to another and may change with time, Recipient is responsible for determining whether the information in this document

is appropriate for recipient's use. Since Dow has no control over how this information may be ultimately used, all liability is expressly disclaimed and Dow

assumes no obligation or liability therefore. No warranty, express or implied, is given nor is freedom from any patent owned by Dow or others to be inferred.
#### § 48.6420(a)-2 Gasoline includible in claim.

Payment may be claimed under section 6420 only in respect of gasoline used on a farm in the United States for farming purposes. No payment is allowable under section 6420 with respect to gasoline used for nonfarming purposes, or gasoline used off a farm, regardless of the nature of such use. If a vehicle or other equipment is used both on a farm and off the farm, or if it is used on a farm both for farming and nonfarming purposes, payment is allowable only with respect to that portion of the gasoline which was “used on a farm for farming purposes” as defined in paragraph (a) of § 48.6420(c)-1. The type of equipment or vehicle and whether or not it is registered for highway use is immaterial. However, the actual use of the equipment or vehicle and place where it is used are material. For example, if a truck used on a farm for farming purposes is also used on the highways (even though in connection with operating the farm), the gasoline used in operating the truck on the highways is not to be taken into account in computing the payment for which a claim is filed, since such gasoline was used off the farm.

[T.D. 6433, 24 FR 10395, Dec. 22, 1959]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS NINE MONTH YEAR TO DATE SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM AMERICAN BIOGENETIC SCIENCES, INC. 1999 10-Q FOR THE THIRD
QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          32,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  227,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    558,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               951,000
<PP&E>                                       2,336,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,830,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,019,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,239,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,702,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,019,000
<SALES>                                        988,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,070,000
<CGS>                                          419,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  419,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,423,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,162,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,162,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,162,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)



</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00120-CV

IN RE David RODRIGUEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 23, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On February 15, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency 

motion for temporary relief. The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that 

relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and the 

emergency motion for temporary relief are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-PC-2639, styled In the Guardianship of Maria I. Rodriguez, An 

Incapacitated Person, in the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer 

presiding.