alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANN CIPRIANI-MAGES and ANTHONY G. MAGES,

Appellants,

v.

THIRD FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF 

CLEVELAND,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2713

[May 3, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Jeffrey Dana Gillen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2013-CA006559-XXXX-MB.

Leanne L. Ohle of Ohle & Ohle, Stuart, for appellants.

Marian G. Kennady of Van Ness Law Firm, PLC, Deerfield Beach, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 1981.111 Withdrawal of complaints, objections, and findings; settlement. ( a ) At any time prior to the filing of objections to the findings or preliminary order, a complainant may withdraw his or her complaint under the Act by filing a written withdrawal with the Assistant Secretary. The Assistant Secretary will then determine whether to approve the withdrawal. The Assistant Secretary will notify the named person of the approval of any withdrawal. If the complaint is withdrawn because of settlement, the settlement will be approved in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) The Assistant Secretary may withdraw his or her findings or a preliminary order at any time before the expiration of the 60-day objection period described in § 1981.106, provided that no objection has yet been filed, and substitute new findings or preliminary order. The date of the receipt of the substituted findings or order will begin a new 60-day objection period.
( c ) At any time before the findings or order become final, a party may withdraw his or her objections to the findings or order by filing a written withdrawal with the administrative law judge or, if the case is on review, with the Board. The judge or the Board, as the case may be, will determine whether to approve the withdrawal. If the objections are withdrawn because of settlement, the settlement will be approved in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
( d ) ( 1 ) Investigative settlements. At any time after the filing of a complaint, and before the findings and/or order are objected to or become a final order by operation of law, the case may be settled if the Assistant Secretary, the complainant and the named person agree to a settlement.
( 2 ) Adjudicatory settlements. At any time after the filing of objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order, the case may be settled if the participating parties agree to a settlement and the settlement is approved by the administrative law judge if the case is before the judge, or by the Board if a timely petition for review has been filed with the Board. A copy of the settlement will be filed with the administrative law judge or the Board, as the case may be.
( e ) Any settlement approved by the Assistant Secretary, the administrative law judge, or the Board will constitute the final order of the Secretary and may be enforced pursuant to § 1981.113.
§ 1989.102 Obligations and prohibited acts. ( a ) No employer or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such employer may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner retaliate against, including, but not limited to, intimidating, restraining, coercing, blacklisting, or disciplining, an employee in the terms and conditions of employment in reprisal for the employee having engaged in any of the activities specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
( b ) An employee is protected against retaliation (as described in paragraph (a) of this section) by an employer or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such employer in reprisal for any lawful act done by the employee: ( 1 ) To provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding underpayment of tax or any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of the internal revenue laws or any provision of Federal law relating to tax fraud, when the information or assistance is provided to the Internal Revenue Service, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the Comptroller General of the United States, the Department of Justice, the United States Congress, a person with supervisory authority over the employee, or any other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct; or
( 2 ) To testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in any administrative or judicial action taken by the Internal Revenue Service relating to an alleged underpayment of tax or any violation of the internal revenue laws or any provision of Federal law relating to tax fraud.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

593 

KA 14-01489 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AHKEEM HUFFMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW

B. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case,

J.), rendered August 4, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon

his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law

§ 125.20 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record

establishes that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived

his right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). 

The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to

the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; People v Lococo, 92 NY2d

825, 827).

Entered: June 17, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Abraham Suderov, Deceased. State Tax Commission, Appellant; Bernard N. Cantor et al., as Executors of Abraham Suderov, Respondents.

Submitted April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*526
      *Seth T. Cole*and *Mortimer M. Kassell*for appellant.

*J. G. Engel*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
# L_2005036DE.01001202.xml

| 9.2.2005 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 36/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2005

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 36/12

---

Berichtigung der Berichtigung der Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1622/2000 der Kommission vom 24. Juli 2000 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1493/1999 über die gemeinsame Marktorganisation für Wein und zur Einführung eines Gemeinschaftskodex der önologischen Verfahren und Behandlungen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 123 vom 27. April 2004
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 123 vom 27. April 2004

Seite 115, Berichtigung der Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1622/2000 (ABl. L 194 vom 31.7.2000, S. 1), letzte Zeile:

anstatt:

| „muss es heißen | : | ‚— | diese Verfahren nicht ein Volumen von mehr als 50 000 hl je Jahr und Versuch betreffen‘.“ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

„muss es heißen

:

‚—

diese Verfahren nicht ein Volumen von mehr als 50 000 hl je Jahr und Versuch betreffen‘.“

muss es heißen:

| „muss es heißen | : | ‚— | diese Verfahren oder Behandlungen nicht ein Volumen von mehr als 50 000 hl je Jahr und Versuch betreffen;‘“. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

„muss es heißen

:

‚—

diese Verfahren oder Behandlungen nicht ein Volumen von mehr als 50 000 hl je Jahr und Versuch betreffen;‘“.

---
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.416 General requirements. ( a ) *Protection of employees.* ( 1 ) No employer shall permit an employee to work in such proximity to any part of an electric power circuit that the employee could contact the electric power circuit in the course of work, unless the employee is protected against electric shock by deenergizing the circuit and grounding it or by guarding it effectively by insulation or other means.
( 2 ) In work areas where the exact location of underground electric powerlines is unknown, employees using jack-hammers, bars, or other hand tools which may contact a line shall be provided with insulated protective gloves.
( 3 ) Before work is begun the employer shall ascertain by inquiry or direct observation, or by instruments, whether any part of an energized electric power circuit, exposed or concealed, is so located that the performance of the work may bring any person, tool, or machine into physical or electrical contact with the electric power circuit. The employer shall post and maintain proper warning signs where such a circuit exists. The employer shall advise employees of the location of such lines, the hazards involved, and the protective measures to be taken.
( b ) *Passageways and open spaces* —-(1) Barriers or other means of guarding shall be provided to ensure that workspace for electrical equipment will not be used as a passageway during periods when energized parts of electrical equipment are exposed. ( 2 ) Working spaces, walkways, and similar locations shall be kept clear of cords so as not to create a hazard to employees.
( c ) *Load ratings.* In existing installations, no changes in circuit protection shall be made to increase the load in excess of the load rating of the circuit wiring.
( d ) *Fuses.* When fuses are installed or removed with one or both terminals energized, special tools insulated for the voltage shall be used.
( e ) *Cords and cables.* ( 1 ) Worn or frayed electric cords or cables shall not be used.
( 2 ) Extension cords shall not be fastened with staples, hung from nails, or suspended by wire.
[44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979; 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, as amended at 55 FR 42328, Oct. 18, 1990; 58 FR 35179, June 30, 1993; 61 FR 9251, Mar. 7, 1996; 61 FR 41738, Aug. 12, 1996]
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      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 operation of the
Company.

Date:    March 15, 2006                         By:      /s/ David L. Norris
                                                         ----------------------
                                                Name:    David L. Norris
                                                Title:   President and
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                 EXHIBIT 32.1-1
#### § 2706.111 Notice.

The agency shall make available to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the agency, and make such information available to them in such manner as the head of the agency finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504 and this regulation.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-67880, No. 33-87196, No. 33-94888, No. 333-60617 and No. 333-42466 of The
First Years Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 6, 2003, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The First Years Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2002.

/S/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 2003
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

June 6, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00227

- CV

Kevin HEADY

, Appellant

v.

Julieta HEADY

, Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court

, Maveri ck County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 06

- 37527

- MCVAJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On May 25 , 202 2 , after the court reporter filed a notification of late record, we ordered Appellant to provide written proof to this court that the record ha s been requested and the appropriate fee paid.

On June 3, 202 2

, Appellant filed a written response . Our May 25 , 202 2 order is satisfied.
The reporter’s record is due on July 5 , 20 2 2

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c).

_________________________________ P atricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of June, 2022

.

________________________________ _ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
#### § 35.1 What is the purpose of the Department of Labor (DOL) age discrimination regulations?

The purpose of this part is to set out the DOL rules for implementing the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age by recipients of Federal financial assistance and in federally assisted programs or activities, but permits the use of certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the requirements of the Act and this part.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAREN FUJITA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-70050 

Tax Ct. No. 10100-15L 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted October 23, 2017**

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Karen Fujita appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment 

sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s collection action for the 2003 

and 2009 tax years. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We 

review de novo. Sollberger v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-70050 

affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because the settlement 

officer did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the proposed collection action for 

tax years 2003 and 2009. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (setting forth matters an 

appeals officer must consider in making a determination to sustain a proposed

collection action); 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (a taxpayer may challenge the 

underlying tax liability only “if the person did not receive any statutory notice of 

deficiency . . . or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax 

liability”).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Fujita’s contentions

challenging the validity of the underlying tax assessments.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as meritless Fujita’s contentions concerning sanctions and 

violations of due process. 

Fujita’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
**Tons/Year**

**2008 Volatile Organic** 

**Compounds Carbon** 

**Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides** **Primary PM10 (Filterables +**  **Condensibles) Primary PM2.5** 

**(Filterables + Condensibles)**  Lanai 7.60 60.80 288.34 13.67 13.53 Molokai 11.99 76.18 291.63 10.95 10.90 Maui 272.94 5,995.72 4,366.41 615.97 460.48 Kauai 122.33 680.51 3,212.21 190.10 186.59 Hawaii 213.68 466.54 2,650.00 423.31 345.78 Oahu 1,461.61 2,036.47 12,875.56 2,379.66 2,018.00 **Total** 2,090.16 9,316.23 23,684.16 3,633.67 3,035.27

**2018 Volatile Organic** 

**Compounds Carbon** 

**Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides** **Primary PM10 (Filterables +**  **Condensibles) Primary PM2.5** 

**(Filterables + Condensibles)**  Lanai 4.44 35.48 168.25 7.98 7.89 Molokai 11.27 71.58 274.01 10.29 10.24 Maui 255.80 5,858.68 3,469.67 432.50 315.93 Kauai 90.10 538.94 2,460.97 132.15 130.05 Hawaii 256.76 2,071.19 1,966.01 244.98 195.08 Oahu 1,437.23 1,795.05 10,324.44 2,681.75 2,345.13 **Total** 2,055.60 10,370.90 18,663.35 3,509.65 3,004.32**Sulfur Dioxide Ammonia**  6.43 0.88 7.70 1.05 4,113.81 32.10 92.03 32.70 5,745.27 24.84 16,858.68 492.36 26,823.91 583.93

**Sulfur Dioxide Ammonia** 

3.75 0.51 7.23 0.98 1,137.56 20.50 66.95 19.21 1,389.98 288.68 12,919.50 642.97 15,524.98 972.86
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Gregory T. Lucier, Chief Executive Officer of Invitrogen Corporation (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Registrant.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: August 8, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Gregory T. Lucier  
|                      |  |  |  | Gregory T. Lucier      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Invitrogen and will be retained by Invitrogen and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Annual Report of Lancaster Colony Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John
B. Gerlach, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John L. Boylan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 conditions and results of
             operations of the Company.

                                              By: /s/ JOHN B. GERLACH, JR.
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                      John B. Gerlach, Jr.
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                              September 23, 2003

                                              By: /s/ JOHN L. BOYLAN
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                      John L. Boylan
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

                                              September 23, 2003
[Civ. No. 2226.

First Appellate District.

October 22, 1917.]

#### B. W. GORTER, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al., Respondents.

Workmen’s Compensation Act—Relationship of Employer and Employee—Evidence—Affirmance of Award.—A writ of review to annul an award of compensation made by the Industrial Accident Commission must be dismissed and "the award affirmed where the evidence sustains the conclusion of the commission that the relation of. employer and employee existed between the petitioner for •the"writ and the applicant for compensation.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Review originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District to annul an award of the Industrial Accident Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

H. Clyde Harms, and Randolph V. Whiting, for Petitioner.

Christopher M. Bradley, for Respondents.

THE COURT.

Petition for writ of review.

It is contended- by petitioner that the applicant in whose favor an award was made by the Industrial Accident Commission was not in his employ but was working independently, although under an arrangement with petitioner by which the latter furnished him with the necessary tools and appliances for performing his work and received forty per cent of the amounts earned by the applicant. The respondent, Industrial Accident Commission, concluded from the evidence on the whole that the relation of employer and employee existed, and thereupon made its award. We are satisfied that the evidence sustains this conclusion, and for that reason the writ is dismissed and the award affirmed.