alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14424]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service
[Docket No. TB-97-17]


Tobacco Inspection; Growers' Referendum Results

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of referendum results.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces the results of the referendum on the 
merger of Tabor City-Whiteville, North Carolina, and Loris, South 
Carolina, flue-cured tobacco markets. A mail referendum was conducted 
during the period of April 27-May 1, 1998, among tobacco growers who 
sold tobacco on these markets in 1997. A required two-thirds majority 
of voters did not favor merging these markets into a single 
consolidated market.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William O. Coats, Associate Deputy 
Administrator, Tobacco Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, United 
States Department of Agriculture, PO Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone number (202) 205-0508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice was published in the April 20, 
1998, issue of the Federal Register (63 FR 19414) announcing that a 
referendum would be conducted among active flue-cured producers who 
sold tobacco on either Tabor City-Whiteville or Loris during the 1997 
season to ascertain if such producers favored the consolidation.
    The notice of referendum announced the determination by the 
Secretary that the consolidated market of Tabor City-Whiteville, North 
Carolina, and Loris, South Carolina, would be designated as a flue-
cured tobacco auction market and receive mandatory Federal grading of 
tobacco sold at auction for the 1998 and succeeding seasons, subject to 
the results of the referendum. The determination was based on the 
evidence and arguments presented at a public hearing held in Tabor 
City, North Carolina, on November 5, 1997, pursuant to applicable 
provisions of the regulations issued under the Tobacco Inspection Act, 
as amended. The referendum was held in accordance with the provisions 
of the Tobacco Inspection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and the 
regulations set forth in 7 CFR 29.74.
    Ballots for the April 27-May 1, 1998, referendum were mailed to 
1,470 producers. Approval required votes in favor of the proposal by 
two-thirds of the eligible voters who cast valid ballots. The 
Department received a total of 375 responses: 89 eligible producers 
voted in favor of the consolidation; 189 eligible producers voted 
against the consolidation; and 97 ballots were determined to be 
invalid.

    Dated: May 26, 1998.
Enrique E. Figueroa,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 98-14424 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-U
(May 10, 2017)

#### 500 Putnam, LLC, Appellant, v Nechadim Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[51 NYS3d 894]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to certain escrowed funds, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated April 1, 2015, as denied its motion for summary judgment on its complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of *797establishing, as a matter of law, that the loan secured by the mortgage was paid in full and that the mortgage on the subject property was discharged *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers submitted by the defendant Nechadim Corp. *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d at 853).

Chambers, J.P., Sgroi, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.
164 A.3d 404

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DORIAN PRESSLEY (A/K/A JUSTIN BELTON), DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 23, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the appellant may serve and file a supplemental brief on or before May 22, 2017, and respondent may serve and file a supplemental brief forty-five (45) days after the filing of appellant’s supplemental submission, or, if appellant declines to file such a submission, on or before July 6, 2017.
#### Marie Jose Clermont, Respondent, v Sahar Abdelrehim et al., Defendants, and Chuong Le, M.D., Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 537]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 29, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant Chuong Le, M.D.’s affirmative defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction and denied Le’s cross motion to dismiss the claims against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged medical malpractice in connection with spinal surgery that rendered her paralyzed from the waist down.

Le waived his lack of service defense by failing to timely move to dismiss, as required by CPLR 3211 (e). If Le had never filed an answer, CPLR 3211 (e) would not have been implicated and the failure to serve him would have rendered all subsequent proceedings null and void *(see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Westervelt,*105 AD3d 896, 897 [2d Dept 2013], *lv dismissed*22 *496NY3d 947 [2013]). Because he did, thereby appearing in the action, at least on a limited basis (see CPLR 320 [b], [c]), he was bound to move to dismiss on the ground of lack of service within sixty days of asserting that defense in his answer (see *Clermont v Abdelrehim,*144 AD3d 572 [1st Dept 2016]; *cf. Moustafa v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr.,*304 AD2d 539, 540 [2d Dept 2003]).

Although we reject Le’s proposed interpretation of CPLR 3211 (e), we nonetheless decline to award sanctions against him.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
<PAGE>

SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                   Exhibit 21.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               State or Jurisdiction of
          Name of Subsidiary                         Incorporation                        Percentage Owned

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                      <C>                                           <C>
Eurobiotech Group, Inc.                  Delaware                                      100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biotechnology & Healthcare Ventures      Republic of Ireland                           100%
Limited
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bioheal Limited                          Republic of Ireland                           100% (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biomed (UK) Limited                      England and Wales                             100% (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>

(1) Indirect ownership; wholly owned by Biotechnology & Healthcare Ventures
Limited.



                                     - 1 -
----

----

| NAME OF COMPANY                                | COUNTRY OF ORGANIZATION | DIRECT/INDIRECT OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE     |
|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| Plaza Centers N.V.                             | The Netherlands         |      62.5% (1)  |
| Elscint Holdings & Investment N.V.         | The Netherlands         | 100%                                     |
| Elbit Medical Technologies Ltd.                | Israel                  |   90% (2)                      |
| Elbit Plaza India Real Estate Holdings Limited | Cyprus                  |      50% (3)(4) |
| Elbit Fashion Ltd.                             | Israel                  | 100%                                     |
| Elbit Ultrasound (Luxemburg) B.V./Sa r.l.      | Luxemburg               | 100%                                     |

| (1) | Approximately 58% on a fully diluted basis. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------|

| (2) | Approximately 85% on a fully diluted basis. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------|

| (3) | We hold 47.5% of the shares in EPI directly, and an additional 47.5% through PC. For additional information as to the joint venture signed between us and PC regarding EPI, see “Item 4.B Business Overview - Residential Projects.” |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4) | For details as to the grant of 5% of EPI’s equity to Mr. Abraham (Rami) Goren, our former Executive Vice Chairman of the board of directors, see "Item 6.B. Directors, Senior Management and Employees - Compensation of Directors and Officers - Agreements with our Former Executive Vice Chairman." |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
# DLA Distribution’s Paolo Pappalardo is recognized and awarded as one of the Defense Logistics Agency’s top ten employees

/ Published Dec. 15, 2020
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
In recognition for his efforts through the past year the Defense Logistics Agency recognizes Paolo Pappalardo as one of the Ten Outstanding DLA Personnel of the Year as part of the DLA 53rd Annual Employee Recognition Awards Program.

Pappalardo is a remarkable and multi-faceted employee, who truly epitomized the qualities and values behind this award. His efforts were key to DLA Distribution Sigonella, Italy’s highly demanding, complex mission successes. Pappalardo’s exceptional work ethic contributed to many successes, driving his team to excel in production, meeting deadlines and warfighter requirements for the last 12 months.

Pappalardo tackled workforce management as it pertained to mission-essential duties, while adhering to and promoting social distancing practices for employees. He was instrumental in identifying personnel among the workforce to designate as “mission-critical on-site” while concurrently managing multiple teams of over 30 employees.

During the COVID-19 crisis, the "mission-critical on-site" designation allowed DLA Distribution Sigonella to continue DLA's vital work of supporting Warfighters and the "whole-of-government" response to the pandemic.

His tireless efforts directly contributed to DLA Distribution Sigonella maintaining green metrics in all operational categories, even during surge and protracted non-duty periods. The distinctive accomplishments of Mr. Pappalardo reflect great credit upon himself, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Department of Defense.Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the ceremony honoring DLA teammates will be recorded and released for viewing to the workforce Jan. 26.
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|No chart available.                                                      
|No chart available.                                                      
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Alabama Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 09-11228.

#### Landon John Plate, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 868, 131 S. Ct. 163,

178 L. Ed. 2d 97,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6720.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 318.
|Attachment A
--------------------
Plan Amendment
|------------------------------------------------

Account No.:   QK61757



1.         Section VI.A. of the Nonstandardized Cash or Deferred Profit-Sharing Plan Adoption 
            Agreement #010, which specifies the percentage or amount of Elective Deferrals that may be 
            made by Participants each year, is hereby amended, effective for Plan Years beginning in 
            2002, as follows:

VI.       EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS

[X]      A.         Elective Deferrals:

[   ]       1.         Up to _______%.

[   ]       2.         Participants shall be permitted to make Elective Deferrals in any amount from 
                        a minimum of ______% to a maximum of ______% of their Compensation not 
                        to exceed $______.

[   ]       3.         Participants shall be permitted to make Elective Deferrals in a flat dollar 
                        amount from a minimum of $______ to a maximum of $______, not to exceed 
                        ______% of their Compensation.

[X]       4.         Up to the maximum percentage of Compensation and dollar amount 
                        permissible under Section 402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code not to exceed 
                        the limits of Code Sections 401(k), 404 and 415.

2.         Paragraph B of Section XIII of the Nonstandardized Cash or Deferred Profit-Sharing Plan 
            Adoption Agreement #010 entitled "VESTING", is hereby amended, effective for Plan Years 
            beginning in 2002, as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in Adoption Agreement #010 or the Basic Plan 
            Document #01 to the contrary, to the extent that the vesting schedule for Discretionary 
            Employer Contributions is the same as the vesting schedule for Employer Matching 
            Contributions, the vesting schedule for Employer Discretionary Contributions shall be the 
            same as the vesting schedule which applies to Employer Matching Contributions, and shall 
            apply to Participants with an account balance derived from Employer Matching Contributions 
            who work one hour of service under the Plan in Plan Years beginning after 2001.

Plan Name:   PAUL MUELLER COMPANY PROFIT SHARING & RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN

Name of Employer:    PAUL MUELLER COMPANY

Executed on behalf of the Employer by:  DONALD E GOLIK

Title:    SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & CFO

Signature:       /S/  DONALD E. GOLIK
                  ---------------------------------------

Date:    JANUARY 8, 2002
No. 10-81.

#### Joe H. Bryant, Jr., Petitioner v. Military Department, Mississippi, et al.

562 U.S. 893, 131 S. Ct. 287,

178 L. Ed. 2d 141,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6263.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 597 F.3d 678.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Atain Specialty Insurance Company

Appellate case number: 01-21-00237-CV

Trial court case number: CV-0085834

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Galveston County

Real parties in interest Jamie Blackburn and Ron Hoss Strimple, Individually and as Next 

Friend of C.S., filed a motion for extension of time in which to file their response to relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus. Real parties in interest’s motion is granted. Real parties in 

interest’s response is due July 7, 2021.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

 Acting individually 

Date: June 10, 2021
# Nutrition care specialists establish, operate containerized kitchen

/ Published March 10, 2022
SEAGOVILLE, Texas, 
Nutrition care specialists and Soldiers from the 394th Field Hospital in Seagoville, Texas kept their skills sharp by setting up, operating, and breaking down a containerized kitchen (CK) during a monthly battle assembly. This task is required of the nutrition care team regularly to maintain proficiency.It’s no secret that good food keeps Soldiers’ morale high to ensure they remain effective no matter what the mission calls for, in any environment. To enhance this, instead of soldiers in deployed environments eating packaged meals-ready-to-eat (MRE’s), the containerized kitchen can be deployed. The CK is a towable trailer that is a fully capable kitchen which can serve hot and fresh food to about 500 to 1,000 soldiers three times a day.Not only does the CK have the soldiers to attend, but also, patients. The 394th Field Hospital is a medical unit, so the CK and it’s soldiers prepare food for the ill and injured under the care of the field hospital in addition to the Soldiers. With a dual-requirement kitchen comes specialized staff, and that’s where Spc. Zachery Richerson of the 394th Field Hospital comes in."We are actually mainly here for the patients," said Spc. Richerson, a nutrition care specialist. "I originally wanted to be a cook in the Army, but I was given an opportunity to be a 68M [nutrition care specialist],” he said with a smile.Richerson elaborates: “You have your standard cooks in the Army for the soldiers, the G.I. meals, and for us, we cook healthy foods and we help the injured to help them heal from their injuries.” He clarified: “we cater different foods to different types of casualties.”When asked about serving lunch today, Richerson said “We’re required to set up the CK once quarterly to maintain our skills, and we decided to go above and beyond and maintain proficiency, by cooking meals for our Soldiers here.”“Hungry Soldiers aren’t happy Soldiers,” said Master Sgt. Darryl Williams, Spc. Richerson’s noncommissioned officer. "We are a small team, but happy Soldiers help with mission success, and we do what we can to help the unit be successful."After each meal is finished and cleaned up, Master Sgt. Williams, Richerson and their team leave satisfied and with a smile. It is readily apparent that they take immense pride in their work, and they truly care about the Soldiers they serve.

*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Army Reserve website.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brett Bernstein, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 497]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), entered on or about March 31, 2017, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C [SORA]), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court’s discretionary upward departure to a level three sex offender adjudication *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841, 861-862 [2014]). “[T]he level suggested *449by the [risk assessment instrument (RAI)] is merely presumptive and a SORA court possesses the discretion to impose a lower or higher risk level if it concludes that the factors in the RAI do not result in an appropriate designation” *(People v Mingo,*12 NY3d 563, 568 n 2 [2009], *see also People v Johnson,*11 NY3d 416, 421 [2008]).

There was ample evidence to support aggravating factors not adequately accounted for in the RAI *(see e.g. People v Vives,*57 AD3d 312 [1st Dept 2008]). The court properly based its upward departure on a combination of aggravating factors, including defendant’s solicitation of various forms of child pornography from his two separate 14-year-old students, and defendant’s text messages to them which contained illicit sexual content. The People submitted to the court 70 to 80 pages of text messages between defendant and one of the victims in which defendant “solicited naked pictures and naked videos” from her. These text messages which contained abhorrent sexual content, indicate that defendant presents an increased risk of harm or re-offense so as to warrant an upward departure. Further, defendant, who was in a position of trust and authority as their teacher, also pressured the victims to not disclose their communications and to delete the text messages he sent.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People sustained their burden of identifying and proving aggravating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument and that tended to establish a higher likelihood of re-offense or danger to the community.

Moreover, the mitigating factors cited by defendant were accounted for in the risk assessment instrument and were outweighed by the seriousness of his conduct *(People v Velasquez,*143 AD3d 583 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
No. 10-5020.

#### William Mangino, II, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 899, 131 S. Ct. 229,

178 L. Ed. 2d 152,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6141.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office, denied.

Same case below, 981 A.2d 926.