alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**531 KA 14-00408**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT HAIGLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered September 5, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of promoting prison contraband in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated and the indictment is dismissed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of promoting prison contraband in the second degree (Penal Law § 205.20 [2]), defendant contends that the judgment of conviction must be reversed because there was no valid accusatory instrument in existence at the time of the plea. We agree. Defendant was indicted in a one-count indictment charging him with promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]). County Court granted defendant’s motion to review the grand jury minutes and, upon that review, concluded that the evidence before the grand jury was not legally sufficient to support that charge but was sufficient to support the lesser included offense of promoting prison contraband in the second degree. Defendant then pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense.

“CPL 210.20 (6) provides that when a court decides to reduce a count contained in an indictment [to a misdemeanor] on the ground that it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, the People do one of the following: (1) accept the court’s order and file a prosecutor’s information containing the reduced charge; (2) re-present the [higher count] to a grand jury; or (3) appeal the court’s order” ( People v Casey , 66 AD3d 1128, 1129; see People v Jackson , 87 NY2d 782, 784). Here, however, the People did not take any of those three actions, and defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge. Inasmuch as “ ‘[a]**-2- 531 KA 14-00408** 
valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution’ ” ( People v Dumay , 23 NY3d 518, 522, quoting People v Dreyden , 15 NY3d 100, 103), the plea must be vacated and the indictment dismissed ( see Casey , 66 AD3d at 1130; see also People v Chadick , 122 AD3d 1258, 1259).

In light of our determination, we do not consider defendant’s remaining contention.

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20838

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAMON FLORES, also known as Pablito,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-79-2

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Flores has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Flores has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

counsel’s assessmentthat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-20838 Document: 00511640146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
No. 10-20838

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-20838 Document: 00511640146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
No. 09-11331.

#### Wally Jacques Simon, Petitioner v. Massachusetts.

562 U.S. 874, 131 S. Ct. 181,

178 L. Ed. 2d 108,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6727.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied.

Same case below, 456 Mass. 280, 923 N.E.2d 58.
#### Schatzberg v. W.C.A.B.(Bemis Co., Inc.)

08/11/2016

147 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 136 A.3d 1081
#### David Fitzgerald et al., Appellants, v Marriott International, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[64 NYS3d 883]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered May 16, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the claim, and to amend the bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants’ motion denied, and plaintiffs’ cross motion granted.

Plaintiff David Fitzgerald injured his knee when, during the course of his employment as a steamfitter, he slipped and fell on a piece of mud-covered insulation while walking down a wooden ramp. At the time, he was working the night shift to monitor the heating fans and pipes, and to ensure that there were no problems with the work that his company had performed earlier that day.

Plaintiff’s testimony established that he was engaged in construction work for Labor Law purposes *(see Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*100 NY2d 878, 881-882 [2003]; *Campisi v Epos Contr. Corp.,*299 AD2d 4, 6 [1st Dept 2002]; *see also Griffin v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 202 [1st Dept 2005]).

As the motion court determined, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) does not apply, as plaintiff did not slip on a “slippery condition” or “foreign substance” within the meaning of that provision *(see D'Acunti v New York City School Constr. Auth.,*300 AD2d 107 [1st Dept 2002]; *see also Nankervis v Long Is. Univ.,*78 AD3d 799 [2d Dept 2010]; *Salinas v Barney Skanska Constr. Co.,*2 AD3d 619, 622 [2d Dept 2003]). However, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) is applicable, as the ramp constitutes a “passageway” under *459section 23-1.7 (e) (1) *(see Conklin v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.,*49 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2008]; *see also Caudill v Rochester Inst. of Tech.,*125 AD3d 1392 [4th Dept 2015]), and a “working area” under section 23.1.7 (e) (2) *(see Maza v University Ave. Dev.*Corp., 13 AD3d 65 [1st Dept 2004]; *Canning v Barneys N.Y.,*289 AD2d 32, 34-35 [1st Dept 2001]). The insulation constitutes debris under the regulation. The fact that plaintiff slipped, rather than tripped, on the piece of insulation does not render 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) inapplicable *(see Serrano v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc.,*146 AD3d 405 [1st Dept 2017], *lv dismissed*29 NY3d 1118 [2017]; *Lois v Flintlock Constr. Servs., LLC,*137 AD3d 446, 447-448 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur—Tom, J.R, Renwick, Gische, Oing and Singh, JJ.
# Defense Department disability awards ceremony honors DLA, individual achievements

/ Published Oct. 13, 2021
Arlington, Va., 
The Defense Logistics Agency’s commitment to hiring and promoting employees with disabilities earned it the best mid-sized component award for the fifth consecutive year in the 41st Annual Secretary of Defense Disability Awards Ceremony at the Pentagon Oct. 7. 

DLA has won the honor 20 times based on performance in 10 areas related to the hiring, retention and advancement of individuals with disabilities. The agency achieved the greatest increase of employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities and employed the largest number of individuals with targeted disabilities among DOD mid-sized components. 

DLA’s use of Schedule A to hire employees with disabilities, especially Workforce Recruitment Program interns, contributed to its success. DLA continues to lead DOD mid-sized components in converting WRP interns to permanent employees. 

The agency has a comprehensive Reasonable Accommodations Program that features a centralized means to request, fund and deploy accommodations, and a strategic plan to address accessibility challenges to meet employees’ needs through technology and services. DLA was recognized for ensuring accessible information and communication technology in the workplace. 

DLA Information Operations employees eliminated systemic barriers to accessing information and communication technology. A proactive plan uses dedicated resources to ensure adoption and implementation of accessibility standards, and created an information technology acquisition strategy.

DLA Information Operations was also lauded for Section 508 compliance achievements allowing clear, accessible captioning for deaf and hard of hearing employees when interpreters are not available. 

General Supply Specialist Aaron Wessman with DLA Aviation in Ogden, Utah, was honored as an outstanding Defense Department employee with a disability. According to Supervisory General Supply Specialist Michael Johnson, who submitted the award nomination, Wessman continually exceeds expectations, displaying a strong work ethic and positive attitude that increases his teammates’ morale.

“Wessman has played a critical role in the evolution of the Aviation inventory/stock readiness programs by personally reviewing and updating 10 standard operating procedures and six training programs totaling over 1,000 slides,” Johnson said. “His outstanding performance maintains DLA’s inventory in a ready to issue state at the customer’s fingertips.”

After a 5.7 magnitude earthquake in March 2020, Wessman coordinated the reconstitution and accountability of 12 facilities and their warehouse locations, ensuring the stock readiness of critical warfighter assets, Johnson said.

DLA Equal Employment Opportunity Director Janice Samuel said hiring employees with disabilities helps the agency build an inclusive global workforce.

“We have talented employees who demonstrate their talents and contributions daily, and we must continue to strive to create the advancement of disability inclusion and equality,” she said.
#### People ex rel. Hemphill v McCardle

4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1315

denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          16,836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,296
<INVENTORY>                                      4,428
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,889
<PP&E>                                          24,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,708
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,896
<BONDS>                                         41,872
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                     135,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,504
<SALES>                                         96,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               203,634
<CGS>                                           49,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,746
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (283)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (859)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,935
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,794)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.14)


</TABLE>
# Battle Creek personnel observe seventh “All-American Day”

/ Published July 19, 2022
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Federal employees and contractors broke out the sunscreen to take part in an “All-American Day” parking lot picnic at the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center in Battle Creek, Michigan, July 19. 

The sunny-but-breezy two-hour event marked the seventh year that Defense Logistics Agency personnel and other building tenants gobbled classic American foods together in an annual observance of the nation’s diversity coordinated by DLA’s local Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity office.

This year’s iteration featured the requisite cornhole station and a long line of hungry patriots ready to feast on entrees and desserts provided by local caterers White Star Coney and Specialty Cheesecake. When forced to choose between a classic coney dog, chili cheese dog, Italian sausage and Polish sausage, the truly All-American thing to do is just eat them all.   

The event began in 2015, when then-Special Emphasis Program Manager Al Hight noticed that the organization regularly populated its event calendar with observances recognizing a wide variety of groups, but offered nothing that celebrated the spirit and pride of the American population in general.

“I had been thinking about it for many years,” said Hight, who served as Equal Employment Opportunity Manager for the Michigan National Guard prior to joining DLA Disposition Services. “Look at the diversity we have in the U.S. We’ve got people from everywhere. So what can we do to recognize everyone?”

From the very first pie tasting competition to the smorgasbord of regional hot dog styles sampled by employees over the years, the response has been very enthusiastic, Hight said.

“People love it,” he said, citing positive feedback his office had received for All-American Day events like the classic car show coordinated with the help of local Morale, Welfare and Recreation office personnel. “Directors, managers, general employees – they look forward to it.”  

----

02:11VIDEO  | 02:11 |DLA Disposition Services Diversity Day 2022

A message from our workforce.
No. 10-5038.

#### Kimberly Albright-Lazzari, et vir, Petitioners v. Connecticut.

562 U.S. 804, 131 S. Ct. 231,

178 L. Ed. 2d 6,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7851.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                             379,424
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      163,765
<ALLOWANCES>                       40,709
<INVENTORY>                        1,132,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   1,750,260
<PP&E>                             1,061,249
<DEPRECIATION>                     877,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     2,132,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              270,737
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           97,458
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         4,175,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       861,547
<SALES>                            1,935,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,935,820
<CGS>                              1,132,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,132,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1,489,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   14,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 23,696
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (710,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (711,471)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (711,471)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.37)
        

</TABLE>
# Germany’s Rhineland-Pfalz Chancellor of Military Affairs visits DLA Distribution Europe

/ Published March 4, 2019
GERMERSHEIM, Germany, 
The Rhineland-Pfalz Chancellor of Military Affairs, Dr. Linda Wittor, left, visited DLA Distribution Europe Jan. 28. Her goals were to gain a greater understanding of the Germersheim Army Depot, the units and capabilities, and the depot’s impact to the region and local community. Martin Mendel, chief, warehousing division, DLA Distribution Europe, center, and Army Lt. Col. Jonathan Ackiss, commander, DLA Distribution Europe, provided a tour to Wittor, and Ackiss presented her with a commander’s coin as a sentiment of the partnership.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morgan’s Foods, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of adate within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the “Evaluation Date”); andc) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.        Date: December 21, 2005  /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir        Leonard R. Stein-Sapir        Chairman of the Board,     Chief Executive Officer  
15
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Anthony C. Odom, Appellant, 

v. 

Alan Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General 

of the State of South Carolina, J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., 

Barry Barnett, and Christina T. Adams, in their official 

capacities as South Carolina Circuit Solicitors, 

Respondents. 

Appellate Case No. 2012-210914 

Appeal from Spartanburg County 

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-022 

Heard June 6, 2013 – Filed July 17, 2013 

AFFIRMED 

Tina L. M. Young, of Aiken, for Appellant. 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant 

Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smith, Jr., of 

Columbia, for Respondents. 
 PER CURIAM: Anthony Odom sued Attorney General Alan Wilson and 

all sixteen South Carolina solicitors in their official capacities seeking inter alia 

injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the State from prosecuting him on 

charges of solicitation of a minor in Oconee County. The circuit court dismissed 

the case, finding it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin an ongoing criminal prosecution. 

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 465, 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2012) ("Issue 

preservation rules are designed to give the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on 

the issues, and thus provide us with a platform for meaningful appellate review."); 

I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 

(2000) ("If the losing party has raised an issue in the lower court, but the court fails 

to rule upon it, the party must file a motion to alter or amend the judgment in order 

to preserve the issue for appellate review."). 

AFFIRMED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
EXHIBIT 10


EXHIBIT 10.12

TERMINATION AGREEMENT




THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of November 16, 2005, by and between POP N GO INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the “Investor”).

Recitals:

WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor entered into an Standby Equity Distribution Agreement (the “Standby Equity Distribution”); a Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration  Rights Agreement”); an Escrow Agreement (the “Escrow Agreement”); and a Placement Agent Agreement (the “Placement Agent Agreement”), all of which are dated May 13, 2004 (collectively, the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement, the Registration Rights Agreement, the Escrow Agreement and Placement Agent Agreement are referred to as the “Transaction Documents”). 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual promises, conditions and covenants contained herein and in the Transaction Documents and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

Termination.  Each of the parties to this Agreement hereby terminate the Transaction Documents and the respective rights and obligations contained therein.  As a result of this provision, none of the parties shall have any rights or obligations under or with respect to the Transaction Documents.  

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed and delivered this Termination Agreement on the date first set forth above.




		
	POP N GO INC.

	CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP


	 	 
	By:

	By: Yorkville Advisors, LLC


	Name:

Melvin Wyman

	Its: General Partner


	Title:

Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 	By:


	 	Name:

Mark A. Angelo


	 	Title:

Portfolio Manager