alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Noel Cedeno, Also Known as Noel Cedero, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 485]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered September 2, 1993, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), rape in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant’s challenge, for cause, of a prospective juror. A review of the record indicates that the juror’s responses to the inquiries of both the court and defense counsel did not rise to the level of actual bias or otherwise indicate that the juror would be unable to render an impartial verdict *(see, People v Williams,*63 NY2d 882; *People v Ramos,*196 AD2d 787; *People v Pagan,*191 AD2d 651; CPL 270.20 [1] [b]).

*556The sentence that was imposed is not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8377 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8377

 To amend the Advancing Research to Prevent Suicide Act to expand the 
  areas of focus regarding childhood suicide, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2024

    Ms. Caraveo (for herself, Mr. Williams of New York, Mrs. Watson 
Coleman, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Thanedar, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. Lee of 
  California, Ms. Tlaib, and Ms. Stansbury) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
                               Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Advancing Research to Prevent Suicide Act to expand the 
  areas of focus regarding childhood suicide, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Youth Suicide Prevention Research 
Act''.

SEC. 2. NSF RESEARCH REGARDING CHILDHOOD SUICIDE.

    Subsection (a) of section 3 of the Advancing Research to Prevent 
Suicide Act is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
        paragraphs:
            ``(5) basic understanding of the role of adverse childhood 
        experiences;
            ``(6) basic understanding of the role of toxic stress in 
        childhood; and''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual report of GEOPHARMA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mihir K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.



/s/ Mihir K. TanejaMihir K. TanejaChief Executive OfficerJune 29, 2006
#### Budd, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7295.

Invoices dated London, England, February 13, 1946, etc.

Certified February 15, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 28, 1946, etc.

Entry No. 748178, etc.

(Decided June 18, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for dehision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

*190On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Actof 1930, to be the proper basisfor the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Gustav Lauter, *Respondent, v.*Joseph L. Berg and others, *Appellants.*

Order reversed, with ten' dollars costs and disbursements to abide event. Opinion by Brady, J.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 8
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 8
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 8
(V. D. 89)

#### Bluefries New York, Inc., et al. v. United States

Entry No. 814247, etc.

(Decided October 30, 1958)

*Michael Stramiello, Jr.,*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These matters are presently before me on remands from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Bluefries New York, Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*40 Cust. *467Ct. 553, Abstract 61934, *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*40 Cust. Ct. 515, Abstract 61804, and in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1909. The judgment entered therein in each case stated: “* * * that the matter be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d) ”

The matters have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto. Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the items marked *“A”*on the invoices herein, and that such value was United States $5.50 per gallon, less 2 per centum, and less packing, freight, duty, delivery charges, and customs entry charges, in each case.

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Insofar as these matters relate to all other merchandise, they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Carlos M. DeSouza, Appellant, v Sbarro, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[635 NYS2d 475]

—In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for wrongful discharge and negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered May 24, 1994, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the action.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The plaintiff’s allegations fall far short of pleading a cognizable claim for fraudulent inducement of employment *(cf., Backer v Lewit,*180 AD2d 134; *cf., Stewart v Jackson & Nash,*976 F2d 86; *cf., Stark v Sbarro, Inc.,*US Dist Ct, ED NY, June 1,1994, Platt, J.; *see also,*CPLR 3016 [b]). Further, to the extent that the third cause of action asserts a theory of recovery based upon negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff has wholly failed to allege facts establishing the existence of a fiduciary duty owed to him by the defendants *(see, White v Guarente,*43 NY2d 356, 362-363; *see also, Stewart v Jackson & Nash, supra,*at 90).

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
#### A. W. Salter & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7288.

Invoices dated London, England, February 21, 1946, etc.

Certified February 26, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 1, 1946, etc.

Entry No. 748852, etc.

(Decided June 17, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EDNA B. ODIORNE, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Leyden & Monaghan*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Pitney, Hardin & Kipp, Mr. William H. Osh orne, Jr.,*and *Mr. Clyde A. Szuch*for the respondent.

April 30, 1962.
No. 46783.

#### Protests 28492-K, etc., of Maray Corp. (New York).

*433Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441), the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty as claimed.
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2

 



 

 

 

March 23, 2015

 

GulfMark Offshore, Inc.

842 West Sam Houston Parkway North

Suite 400

Houston, Texas 77024

 

Dear Sir:

 

I propose and voluntarily agree to a 10% reduction in my annual base salary effective as of the first full payroll period commencing after this date. I agree that this reduction in my annual base salary will not be a breach of any agreements I have with the company.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

/s/ James M. Mitchell                         

James M. Mitchell

EVP and Chief Financial Officer

GulfMark Offshore, Inc.

 

 

Agreed:

 

 

/s/ Quintin V. Kneen                          

Quintin V. Kneen

President and Chief Executive Officer

GulfMark Offshore, Inc.
No. 53076.

#### Bock Hing Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 135900-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4878]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences (1110).
    Date and Time: April 19, 2007; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230, Room 1235.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Joann Roskoski, Executive Officer, 
Biological Sciences, Room 605, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Tel No.: (703) 292-8400.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: The Advisory Committee for BIO provides 
advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning major program 
emphases, directions, and goals for the research-related activities 
of the divisions that make up BIO.

Agenda:
    <bullet> Budget Update and Implications.
    <bullet> Systems Biology and Leading Edge Discussions.
    <bullet> Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences.
    <bullet> Open Discussion.

    Dated: March 13, 2007.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-4878 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Before The Third Division,

May 12, 1955

No. 59061.

protests 247200-K and 247473-K (New York).

#### H. A. Gogarty, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector's classification, the protests were overruled.
Search Help More Search 

Options Search

EERE Information Center Distribution Transformers NOPR 

Technical Support Document

This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides the technical 

analyses and results in support of the information presented in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for distribution 

transformers.

The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download 

Acrobat Reader.

Title Page (PDF 16 KB)

Table of Contents (PDF 290 KB)

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (PDF 64 KB)

Chapters

Chapter 

1.

Introduction (PDF 77 KB)

Chapter 

2.

Analytical Framework (PDF 180 KB)

Chapter 

3.

Market and Technology Assessment (PDF 400 KB)

Chapter 

4.

Screening Analysis (PDF 129 KB)

Chapter 

5.

Engineering Analysis (PDF 3.9 MB)

Chapter 

6.

Energy Use and End-Use Load 

Characterization

(PDF 215 KB)

Chapter 

7.

Markups for Equipment Price 

Determination

(PDF 76 KB)

Chapter 

8.

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses

(PDF 672 KB)

Chapter 

9.

Shipments Analysis (PDF 182 KB)

Chapter 

10.

National Impact Analysis (PDF 248 KB)

Chapter 

11.

Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis (PDF 137 KB)

Chapter 

12.

Manufacturer Impact Analysis (PDF 479 KB)

Chapter Utility Impact Analysis (PDF 484 KB)

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
13.

Chapter 

14.

Net National Employment Impact (PDF 78 KB)

Reports

Environmental Assessment (PDF 182 KB)

Regulatory Impact Analysis (PDF 171 KB)

Appendices

Appendix 

3A

Core Steel Market Analysis (PDF 294 KB)

Appendix 

5A

Supplementary Engineering Analysis 

Results

(PDF 4.5 MB)

Appendix 

5B

Scaling Relationships in Transformer 

Manufacturing

(PDF 317 KB)

Appendix 

5C

Q1 2005 Material Pricing Analysis (PDF 5.4 MB)

Appendix 

8A

Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Results

(PDF 864 KB)

Appendix 

8B

Uncertainty and Variability (PDF 51 KB)

Appendix 

8C

Sample Utilities (PDF 58 KB)

Appendix 

8D

Life-Cycle Cost Sensitivity Results (PDF 1.8 MB)

Appendix 

8E

Average Transformer Design 

Properties from Life-Cycle Cost 

Model

(PDF 273 KB)

Appendix 

10A

User Instructions for Shipments and 

National Impact Analysis 

Spreadsheet Model

(PDF 59 KB)

Appendix 

10B

National Energy Savings and Net 

National Present Value Results

(PDF 580 KB)

Appendix 

11A

Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Results (PDF 777 KB)

Appendix 

12A

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

Interview Guides: Liquid-Immersed 

and Medium-Voltage, Dry-Type

(PDF 234 KB)

Appendix 

12B

Manufacturer Impact Analysis Small 

Business Interview Guide

(PDF 87 KB)

Appendix 

12C

Government Regulatory Impact 

Model (GRIM) Supporting 

Documentation

(PDF 164 KB)

Appendix 

13A

NEMS-BT Extension Modeling 

Beyond 2025

(PDF 69 KB)

Printable 

Version

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
Webmaster | Security & Privacy | Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home

U.S. Department of Energy

Content Last Updated: 08/08/2006

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
#### Maryann Pareti et al., Appellants, v Karrie A. Giglietta, Defendant, and Patricia J. Smolenski et al., Respon*608dents.

[634 NYS2d 201]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated August 19, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendants Patricia J. Smolenski and Marian E. Smolenski for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them, based on the plaintiffs’ failure to establish serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Patricia J. Smolenski and Marian E. Smolenski.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the injured plaintiff, Maryann Pareti submitted an affirmation dated July 20, 1994, prepared by Dr. Donald I. Goldman which was based on an examination of the injured plaintiff he had performed one week earlier. The affirmation indicated that as a result of the accident, the injured plaintiff had a 20% restriction of motion of her cervical spine and that the injury to the cervical spine "should be considered permanent”. The affirmation was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained "significant limitation of use of a body function or system” *(cf., Beckett v Conte,*176 AD2d 774). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00004

- CV

RATTLESNAKE RIDGE VENTURES, LLC

, Appellant

v.

Alicia ORTIZ , Individually and as Next Friend of M.D.M. and A.D.M., Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court

, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 21

- 372

Honorable Baldemar Garza , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s December 15, 2021 order denying Ratt lesnake Ridge Ventures, LLC’s special appearance is REVERSED.

We VACATE the trial court’s January 10, 2022 order granting Alicia Ortiz’s motion to show authority and striking Rattlesnake Ridge Ventures, LLC’s special appearance and answer pleadings.

We RENDER judgment dismissing Alicia Ortiz’s claims against Rattlesnake Ridge Ventures, LLC for want of personal jurisdiction.

We tax costs of court for this appeal against Alicia Ortiz.

Rattlesnake Ridge Ventures, LLC’s June 28, 2022 motion to stay trial court proceedings is

MOOT.

SIGNED August 3, 2022.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### DANIEL SANTOR, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. A and M KARAGHEUSIAN, INC., *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

April 27, 1964. Granted.

See same case below: 82 *N. J. Super.*319.

*Mr. Joseph A. Maressa*and *Mr. O. Zachary Seltzer*for the petitioner.

*Messrs.*Kleinberg, *Moroney & Masterson*and *Mr. Sheldon Schachier*for the respondents.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
JOHN W. HARPER

, Appellant,

v.

ROBERT D. RICHARDSON AND BARBARA S. RICHARDSON

, Appellee s

. 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. 1D 16

- 2554

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 13, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Michael S. Sharrit , Judge

. Preston H. Oughton and Christopher D. Keever, Jacksonville , for Appellant.

J ohn D. Middleton, Melrose , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Jensen v. Whetstine , 985 So. 2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA

2008) (“ An order is not an appealable partial final order where there is a factual

overlap between the pending claims and the c laims resolved by the order.”)

.
WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 12-412 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BERMUDA 

Signed at Hamilton January 12, 2009 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 BERMUDA 

 Mutual Legal Assistance 

Treaty signed at Hamilton January 12, 2009; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate June 29, 2010 (Treaty Doc. 111-6, 

 111th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 26, 2011 (Senate Executive Report No. 112-3, 

 112th Congress, 1st Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 26, 2011; 

Ratified by the President January 6, 2012; 

Exchange of letters of notification at Hamilton April 12, 2012; 

Entered into force April 12, 2012.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60040 Summary Calendar

ARTHUR IVY, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI CORRECTION FACILITY, Medical Clinic, Defendant,
ROBERT CULPEPPER; JOHN F. DONNELLY,JR.; STEVE PUCKETT, Defendants-Appellees Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CV-322-BN

- - - - - - - - - - January 5, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arthur Ivy, Jr., Mississippi prisoner no. 76754, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Dr. Robert Culpepper; John F. Donnelly Jr., superintendent of the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility, medical clinic (CMCF); and Steve Puckett, commissioner of the Mississippi Department ofNo. 98-60040 -2- Corrections (MDOC). CMCF had been dismissed from the lawsuit in a previous ruling which is not challenged on appeal. Ivy’s complaint, liberally construed, alleges only thatefforts that have been made to provide him with a properlyfitting prosthesis have been unsuccessful. “Unsuccessful medical treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 cause of action.” Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.