alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"agency":"NCD","generated":"2017-07-24 09:02:33","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"}],"value":"2017"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NCD"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":[" "]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":[" "]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":[" "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2017","quarter":"Q3"}
#### In the Matter of Joel D. Hanig, Appellant, v State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles et al., Respondents.

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered May 3, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents denying petitioner’s request for certain documents under the Freedom of Information Law.

At issue on this appeal is whether the response given by an applicant for a New York license to the question on the application form which asks, "Do you have, or are you currently receiving treatment for, any disabilities?”, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6). We agree with Supreme Court that respondents acted properly in redacting or masking this portion of the requested application form.

Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b) permits an agency to deny access to records or portions thereof if disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b) (i) provides that "[a]n unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to * * * disclosure of employment, medical or credit histories”. Notwithstanding petitioner’s argument to the contrary, we have no difficulty in concluding that an applicant’s existing medical condition, particularly the presence or absence of a disability, constitutes a relevant and material part of the applicant’s medical history, and we reject petitioner’s claim that the statute applies only to complete and precise technical appraisals prepared by medically qualified personnel. The relevant inquiry is not, in our view, whether the information was compiled by medically qualified personnel or whether the information in and of itself constitutes a complete and precise technical appraisal of a person’s medical past. Rather, the information constitutes medical history, the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b), if it is the type of information that one would reasonably expect to be included as a relevant and material part of a proper medical history. Since the information at issue here meets this standard, respondents had the discretionary authority to deny access to the information (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]), and we see no abuse of discretion here.

*885Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.
#### FEDERAL TRUCK LINES, Inc., Movant v. CAFE SERVICE, Inc., Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 30, 1951.

William Mellor, Louisville, for movant.

Wm. S. Heidenberg, Louisville, for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment for plaintiff for $434.97 for damage to shipment of meat.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 
  
 [DATE] 
  
 NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION AWARD 
  
 [NAME & ADDRESS] 
  
 Dear [ First Name ]:

  
 In recognition of your commitment and support of Commercial Federal Bank, the
Compensation Committee authorized 5,000 stock options to be awarded to each director as of [ DATE OF COMMITTEE MEETING ]. The options are awarded under the Commercial Federal 2002 Stock Option Plan at
$                     per share. The options are fully vested immediately. The exercise price of the options will remain constant at
$                     and your option to purchase these shares is good through
                                 (10 years from the grant date.) 
  
 This letter is your official notice of your Stock Option Award. You should retain it with
your important papers. This Option Award will be posted to your Optionee Statement by our Stock Option Plan Administrator, Transcentive, Inc. As a reminder, you can locate information on this and your other stock option awards at any time via
Transcentive’s WealthViews website, https://wwww.wealthviews.com/cfb. To access the system your user ID and personal identification number (PIN) are required. Your User ID is your social security number without dashes. You may request
your PIN via e-mail at wealthviews@transcentive.com. 
  
 Please contact me
at (402) 514-5445 if you have any questions regarding your grant or the WealthViews site. 
  
 Thank you again for your support of Commercial Federal. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
 John Griffith 
 Senior Vice President 
 Human Resources Director
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1127 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1127

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2009

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                To extend certain immigration programs.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT NONMINISTER RELIGIOUS WORKER PROGRAM.

    Subclauses (II) and (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) are 
amended by striking ``March 6, 2009,'' each place such term appears and 
inserting ``September 30, 2009,''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF FOREIGN COUNTRY RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO 
              INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL GRADUATES.

    Section 220(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical 
Corrections Act of 1994 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note) is amended by striking 
``March 6, 2009'' and inserting ``September 30, 2009''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 4, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT

M IC HAEL C UTTS,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R IC HLAND HOLDINGS, INC ., DB A Ac c tc orp of Southe rn Ne va da ; C LIFFORD M OLIN, DB A Ze e ba

Sle e p C e nte r, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-15377 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-01525-JC M -PAL

ORDER *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 14, 2019 Subm ission W ithdra

wn July 22, 2019 R e subm itte d M arc h 11, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd PEAR SON, ** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED
MAR 11 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The Honora

ble B e nita

Y. Pe arson, Unite d

Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.The sta y of the s e proc e e dings is lifte d. This c a s e is he re by re subm i tte d a s of the d a te of this orde r. This a ppe a l is he re by

dism isse d pursua

nt to thepa

rtie s’ joint stipula

tion to volunta rily dism iss this a

ppe a l pursua

nt to R ule 42(b) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of Appe l lat e Proc e dure (Dkt. 53). Thepa rtie s ha ve a gre e d tha

t e a c h side sha ll be ar its
own c osts on a

ppe a l . The filing of this orde r sha ll se rve a s the c ourt’ s m andate
. The C le rk is he re by dire c te d to se rve a c opy of this orde r on the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt. DISM I SSE D

2
#### ROYAL CREDIT CLOTHIERS v. PHILLIPS.

No. 8966.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Dec. 11, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 1940.

*1112Elton M. Hyder, of Ft. Worth, for appellant.

No briefs filed for appellee.

BLAIR, Justice.

This appeal is from an order overruling the plea of privilege of appellant, Royal Credit Clothiers, a corporation, to be sued in Tarrant County, its residence and principal place of business. By his controverting affidavit, appellee, George A. Phillips, alleged and on the venue hearing proved in substance that by an oral contract he was employed by appellant to manage its store in Austin, Travis County, Texas, for a period of one year, at a salary of $35 per week to begin with, which after the first week was increased to $40, but at the end of four months he was fired without good cause; and for which breach of contract he sought both actual and exemplary damages. Ap-pellee also alleged and proved that appellant was incorporated under the corporate name of Royal Credit Clothiers, Inc., that its in-corporators were F. M. Skinner and his wife, Allie Skinner, who filed and recorded an affidavit in Travis County that appellant was operating in Austin, Travis County, Texas, as “Royal Credit Clothiers, Inc., D B A Lacy’s”; that appellant had an agent or manager conducting "and managing its business in Austin in the person of G. L. Lindsey; that the contract of employment was made and performed in Austin, and the breach thereof occurred in Travis County. Under these allegations and proof of facts, appellee asserted and the trial court sustained venue in Travis County by virtue of the provisions of Art. 1995, Sub. 23, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., which read: “Suits against a private corporation * * * may be brought in any county in which the cause of action, or a part thereof, arose, or in which such corporation * * * *has*an agency or representative.”

Under the foregoing proof, we overrule the several propositions of appellant that appellee failed to show that appellant was a private corporation. It was shown to be operating a retail clothing business. The evidence also showed that appellant had a place of business in Austin, Travis County, Texas, and that G. L. Lindsey was its manager and representative in Austin.

Nor is there any merit to the contention that appellee failed to show any contract of employment by any authorized agent of the corporation. He was employed by an agent of the corporation, talked the matter of how much business he was expected to produce with both Mr. and Mrs. Skinner, and actually worked for the corporation operating under the name assumed by them for a period of about four *months,*producing more than $20,000 worth of business for the corporation; and without any stated reason he was discharged.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
# Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense: Simplifying an Increasingly Complex Problem

/ Published Feb. 12, 2019

JFSC's students published "Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense: Simplifying an Increasingly Complex Problem". *Published January 1, 2018.*

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of SITEL Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jorge A. Celaya, ExecutiveVice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ *Jorge A. Celaya*                              |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jorge A. Celaya                                    |   |
| Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                               |   |
| November  9, 2004                                  |   |

 

----
NOTICE AS to Non-Disclosure Agreements

TO: Current Treasury Employees:

As a Treasury Department employee, you may have been required to sign a non-disclosure policy, 

form, or agreement to access classified or other information. You should read this statement as if it 

were incorporated into any non-disclosure policy, form, or agreement you have signed.

These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or 

otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing 

statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications 

to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, 

or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a 

substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other 

whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, 

sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory 

provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.

Controlling authorities:

Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101–12, as amended by Whistleblower Protection 

Enhancement Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-199, codified at 5 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.

Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act of 2002, Pub. L. 

No. 107–174, codified at 5 U.S.C. 2301 note

The Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-452, as amended, codified at 5 U.S.C. app. 3

Section 7211 of Title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to Congress)

Section 1034 of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act 

(governing disclosure to Congress by members of the military)

Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, codified at 50 U.S.C. 421 et seq. (governing disclosures 

that could expose confidential Government agents)

The criminal statutes of Title 18 protecting against disclosures that may compromise national security, 

specifically, sections 641, 793, 794, 798 and 952

Section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Act of 1950, codified at 50 U.S.C. 783(b)

Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information

Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information

Treasury Order 105-19, Delegation of Original Classification Authority; Requirements for Downgrading 

and Declassification

Treasury Order 114-01, Treasury Office of Inspector General
Treasury Order 115-01, Office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

Treasury Directive 27-12, Organization and Functions of the Office of Inspector General

Treasury Directive 40-01, Responsibilities of and to the Inspector General

Treasury Directive 15-03, Department of the Treasury Intelligence Information System Security Policy 

Manual
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 405

To commend the United States rice industry, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 20, 1994

Mr. DE LA GARZA (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SARPALIUS, Mr. EMERSON,

Mr. THORNTON, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. WILSON,

Mr. HAYES, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. LAUGHLIN, Mr. HUTCHINSON, and Mr. BROOKS) introduced the following joint resolution; which

was referred jointly to the Committees on Post Office and Civil Service

and Agriculture

JOINT RESOLUTION

To commend the United States rice industry, and for other

purposes.

Whereas the rice industry is a good and valuable part of the

United States economy;

Whereas it is estimated that rice production, milling, and

marketing and rice-related commerce provide over

100,000 jobs in the United States economy;

Whereas the rice industry helps to generate a positive balance

of agricultural trade for the United States economy;
2

HJ 405 IH

Whereas the rice industry generates over $3,000,000,000 in

annual commerce for the United States economy;

Whereas rice is a popular food in the United States, with

consumption increasing 3 to 5 percent annually;

Whereas rice producers have made major efforts to protect

waterfowl habitat, and rice production can be managed to

protect water quality in an environmentally sound manner;

Whereas the rice industry produces an important food used

in the worldwide humanitarian assistance program of the

United States Government;

Whereas competition for foreign rice markets is ever increasing;

Whereas, to be competitive, the United States rice industry

must implement and maintain a comprehensive research

and product market development program;

Whereas, to be competitive, the United States rice industry

must use its resources efficiently and effectively;

Whereas a strong unified voice is a valuable and productive

asset for any United States industry but especially for a

comparatively small industry like rice; and

Whereas the United States rice industry, fully recognizing

modern resource and market and other economic and environmental challenges, has voluntarily and collectively

developed a plan for, and agreed to establish, an industry

organization to best determine and accomplish its goals:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the United States rice industry is to be commended
3

HJ 405 IH

1 for its decision to establish an industry organization, and

2 the President is authorized and requested to issue a proc3 lamation commending the decision and recognizing the

4 success that the decision will have in promoting the com5 mon interests of the rice industry, as well as the interests

6 of the rice-consuming public.

Æ
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: July 2, 2015 520209

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of WAHID A. BAKIR, Appellant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 5, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________ Lianne S. Pinchuk, Albany County Bar Association, Albany, for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 5, 2014, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant worked for the employer as a truck driver for approximately 10 weeks. While he was making a delivery to one of the employer's major customers, he was asked to shut off his truck engine at the gate in accordance with the customer's policy. Having experienced some mechanical problems with the truck, claimant refused to do so and was directed to leave the customer's premises. The customer complained to claimant's supervisor, who later confronted claimant about the incident. According to the supervisor, claimant became hostile and argumentative during their discussion and indicated that he would not comply with the customer's policy. His employment was-2- 520209

terminated as a result. Claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied and the denial was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board agreed that claimant had engaged in disqualifying misconduct and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision. Claimant now appeals. We affirm. Behavior that is contrary to established policies and detrimental to an employer's interest has been found to rise to the level of misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Bastian [Commissioner of Labor], 19 AD3d 915, 916 [2005]; Matter of Chillious [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 655, 655-656 [2004]). Here, it is undisputed that claimant refused to comply with the customer's policy of shutting off his truck engine and indicated his unwillingness to do so even after being counseled by his supervisor. Inasmuch as the customer was one of the employer's major clients, claimant's conduct was clearly detrimental to the employer's interest. In view of this, and given claimant's disrespectful attitude toward his supervisor, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. We have considered claimant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpersuasive. Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court