alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Betty Sebrow, Appellant, v Joe & Mike Taxi, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[67 NYS3d 633]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered August 22, 2016, which granted defendant Joe & Mike Taxi, Inc.’s (J&M) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that she hailed a taxicab owned by J&M and operated by codefendant Mohammed N. Mia, and that Mia *591made anti-Semitic remarks to her, threatened her safety, and misled police officers as to whether she had paid the fare.

J&M made a prima facie showing that Mia was not its employee, but rather was an independent contractor, and that it therefore could not be held liable for Mia’s acts *(see Chainani v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*87 NY2d 370, 380-381 [1995]). In particular, J&M showed that it leased the taxi to Mia, who received no salary, retained his own fares, and had the sole responsibility and control over the manner and means of providing taxi services *(see Bynog v Cipriani Group,*1 NY3d 193, 198 [2003]; *see also Marino v Vega,*12 AD3d 329, 330 [1st Dept 2004]; *Irrutia v Terrero,*227 AD2d 380, 381 [2d Dept 1996]).

Plaintiff’s speculation that discovery could lead to relevant evidence was insufficient to overcome J&M’s prima facie showing *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 563-564 [1980]).

Plaintiff failed to preserve her contention that the daily taxi lease agreement submitted in support of J&M’s motion expired by its terms before the incident.

There is no basis to hold J&M vicariously liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 for Mia’s intentional actions *(see Gomez v Singh,*309 AD2d 620, 621 [1st Dept 2003]).

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber, Oing, JJ.
No. 10-5550.

#### Martin Hernandez-Dominguez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 928, 131 S. Ct. 317,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7365.

178 L. Ed. 2d 207,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 558.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felix M. Sanchez, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 132]

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered January 19, 2016, convicting him of forgery in the second degree (two counts) and identity theft in the first degree (two counts) under indictment No. 1946/13, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered January 19, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (seven counts), unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree (six counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (four counts), and unlawful possession of personal identification information in the third degree (three counts), under indictment No. 2229/ 13, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea in accordance with *Padilla v Kentucky*(559 US 356 [2010]). The record, however, does not demonstrate whether defense counsel misadvised or failed to advise him about the possibility of deportation. A motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 is the appropriate forum for reviewing any such claim which relates to matters not on the record *(see People v Pastor,*28 NY3d 1089, 1091 [2016]; *People v Peque,*22 NY3d 168, 202 [2013]; *People v Haffiz,*19 NY3d 883, 885 [2012]; *People v Fernandez,*148 AD3d 1052 [2017]; *People v Drammeh,*100 AD3d 650, 651 [2012]).

To the extent that the defendant contends that the County Court failed to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea of guilty, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise the issue or move to withdraw his plea despite indicating on the record that he was aware that there could be immigration consequences to pleading guilty *(see People v Pastor,*28 NY3d at 1091; *People v Fernandez,*148 AD3d at 1052; *People v Stewart,*142 AD3d 629 [2016]). In any event, that contention is without merit, as the court adequately advised the defendant that his pleas of guilty to felonies could expose him to deportation *(see People v Peque,*22 NY3d at 197).

Rivera, J.R, Sgroi, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
#### John Reiter, Appellant, v Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 815]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about May 22, 2002, which denied petitioner employee’s application seeking, inter alia, to annul a negative evaluation of petitioner by his supervisor that was upheld after undergoing respondent employer’s appeal process, and directed entry of judgment dismissing the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that respondent did not follow its own appeal process was waived by his failure to object to the alleged irregularities in the process at the time they were committed *(see Matter of Kabnick v Chassin, 223*AD2d 935, 936 [1996], *affd*89 NY2d 828 [1996]), or indeed at any time before the process had concluded. We have considered and rejected petitioner’s other arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
# Navy Reserve officer receives prestigious award

/ Published Aug. 4, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Benjamin Chen, executive officer for Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Joint Reserve Force in Richmond, Virginia, was honored as one of five recipients to receive the calendar year 2022 Vice Adm. Robert F. Batchelder Award.

The award, established in 1983 by the Navy League of the United States, is presented annually to the Navy’s top supply corps officers in the ranks of O-1 through O-4, who made significant contributions to the supply readiness of Navy operating forces. Batchelder served on active duty from 1917-1957.
# C_2014039EN.01000801.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 November 2013 — AMBISIG-Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda v NERSANT-Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, NÚCLEO INICIAL — Formação e Consultoria Lda

(Case C-601/13)

2014/C 39/13

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AMBISIG-Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda

Applicant:

Defendants: NERSANT-Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, NÚCLEO INICIAL — Formação e Consultoria Lda

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

With regard to a procurement contract for the provision of training and consultancy services, of an intellectual nature, is it compatible with Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, as amended, to lay down, among the factors making up the award criterion in relation to tenders in a public tendering procedure, a factor that evaluates the teams specifically put forward by the tenderers for the performance of the contract, having regard to the composition of the respective teams, their proven experience and analysis of their CVs?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

1

---
S91A1152.

#### CREMINS et al. v. THE ATLANTA JOURNAL & THE ATLANTA CONSTITUTION et al.

(405 SE2d 675)

Fletcher, Justice.

This case arises out of a request for the production of certain documents made by appellees to three Georgia Tech athletic coaches pursuant to the Open Records Act, OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq. The documents requested concern athletically related outside income of the three coaches. The trial court conducted a thorough in camera inspection of documents produced by the coaches and ordered the production of certain of those documents pursuant to our decision in *Dooley v. Davidson,*260 Ga. 577 (397 SE2d 922) (1990). The coaches appealed.

We find that this case is controlled by our decision in *Dooley,*supra, and that the trial court, with one exception, properly considered all of the factors set forth therein in reaching its decision. The trial court held that both a consultant appearance contract and a consultant contract between Cremins and Nike were public records. The latter contract clearly is governed by the Open Records Act, however, the former contract is not. In *Dooley,*referring to a consultant appearance agreement at issue in that case, we held that:

> It obligates the coach only to make speaking appearances on behalf of a manufacturer. Standing alone, a contract to speak on behalf of a third party — unconnected with and not in conflict with the performance of an official duty — relates to a *private*activity, and is not a “public record.”

(Emphasis in original.) *Dooley,*260 Ga. at 582. In *Dooley,*there were two contracts with the same manufacturer just as there are here: a consultant contract and a consultant appearance contract. We have compared the consultant appearance contract involved in *Dooley*with the Cremins’ consultant appearance contract and find that the two contracts are virtually identical. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court as to the Cremins’ consultant appearance contract and hold that such contract relates to a private activity, is not a public record, and need not be disclosed. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s orders relating to the production of these documents.

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

*All the Justices concur, except Clarke, C. J., and Smith, P. J., who dissent.*

Clarke, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

I cannot agree with the majority opinion for the same reason enunciated in my dissent in the case of *Dooley v. Davidson,*260 Ga. 577 (397 SE2d 922) (1990). I therefore respectfully dissent.

*497Decided July 3, 1991 —

Reconsideration denied July 24, 1991.

*Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, Rufus T. Dorsey IV, Armando L. Basarrate II,*for appellants.

*Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Terrence B. Adamson, Peter C. Can-field, James A. Demetry, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Michael E. Hobbs, Senior Assistant Attorney General,*for appellees.

*Alston & Bird, Judson Graves, Paul J. Quiner, Daniel A. Kent,*amicus curiae.

Smith, Presiding Justice,

dissenting.

My feelings are the same as those expressed in *Dooley v. Davidson,*260 Ga. 577 (397 SE2d 922) (1990). Therefore, I dissent.
# DLA, DSCA discuss information sharing at Foreign Military Sales Summit

/ Published June 6, 2024
Fort Belvoir, Va. , 
A Foreign Military Sales Summit brought together stakeholders from the operational and financial communities to address audit processes May 16 at Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters. 

Representatives from the military services, DLA and Defense Security Cooperation Agency discussed their use of multi-domain data and analytics software to gather and share insights.

“We aim for our systems to do an electronic ‘handshake,’ which will allow the services to share data in a streamlined manner up to the leadership level,” said Joe Brooks, chief of DLA’s Whole-of-Government Division.

DSCA administers FMS on behalf of the Defense Department. DLA major subordinate commands provide sustainment support for FMS and two DLA entities – DLA Disposition Services and Defense Logistics Information Services – manage some FMS cases.

“The discussions helped shape ways to build a stronger foundation for innovation in executing the FMS mission,” said Andre Hinson, DLA liaison officer for DSCA and FMS account manager.

Discussions centered around the use of automated tools such as Advana by DOD and foreign partners, federal agencies, academia, and industry to share information from hundreds of business systems. Hinson said data and analytics tools support agility and enhanced responsiveness, two goals identified during last year’s summit.  

Discussions at the previous summit also focused on improving operational agility and financial responsiveness. Following that summit, DSCA established the Continuous Process Improvement Board and working subgroups to investigate possible improvements in FMS processes as directed by the secretary of defense.

Areas the board identified as needing attention included a broader understanding of ally and partner requirements, accelerated acquisition and contracting support, and expansion of the defense industrial base, Hinson said.

Laura Durback, DLA’s whole-of-government audit and customer account manager, said future summits may include an additional day for deeper discussions on topics like automated solutions and business intelligence.

Another summit may also be held after Sept. 30, to review lessons learned from the fiscal 2024 financial statement audit.
No. 10-5497.

#### Carmel Murphy, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 925, 131 S. Ct. 309,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7170.

178 L. Ed. 2d 201,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, denied.
**EXHIBIT      31.2**

|                                                                                                              |   |   | **ECHELON                CORPORATION**                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                              |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                             Date: March 16, 2007 |   | By:    | /s/                Oliver R. Stanfield                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                                                                                                              |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                                                                                                              |   |   | Oliver                R. Stanfield, Executive                Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer (Duly Authorized                Officer and Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer)  |
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FRED GRAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3527

[April 17, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 14-11224CF10A and 14-12215CF10A.

Fred Gray, Quincy, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

PER CURIAM.

Upon remand from the Florida Supreme Court, we reverse appellant's 

sentence in accordance with State v. Lewars, 259 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 2018), 

and remand for resentencing.

WARNER, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

No motions for rehearing shall be filed.
# C_2014142EN.01005602.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/56

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — Walton v Commission

(Case F-32/13) (1)

1

((Civil service - Temporary agent - Severance grant - Resignation found by judgment of the General Court of the European Communities - Determination of the date of resignation - Authority of res judicata - Decisions of the appointing authority becoming definitive in the absence of legal action - Non-observance of the prior administrative procedure - Manifestly inadmissible))

2014/C 142/76

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and A.-C. Simon, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the rejection of the application for reimbursement of the unpaid sum which the Commission ought to pay to the applicant as the severance grant.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Walton must bear his own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Walton must bear his own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20/07/2013, p. 58.

1

---
No. 10-5800.

#### David Maiden, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 938, 131 S. Ct. 348,

178 L. Ed. 2d 225,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7377.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 606 F.3d 337.
# DLA Distribution Commander delivers Air Force birthday message

/ Published Sept. 15, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
The United States Air Force celebrates its 76th Birthday on September 18. From the very beginning, the Air Force has been instrumental in protecting the Nation, leading the nation in continued innovation and leading in the air, space and cyber domains.

Since it was officially established in 1947, the Air Force has been a force for good at home and abroad. Overseas, airmen support the U.S. military with combat airpower, mobility, superior intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. On the home front, airmen safeguard the nation from threats, protecting our freedoms. They advance our interests around the world, ensuring that our country is a global leader in innovation and aviation.

The Air Force was born out of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, who worked with the Wright Brothers in 1909 to create the world’s first military airplane, a two-seat observation aircraft that is now displayed at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C. In addition to securing the skies, the Air Force is at the forefront of the cutting-edge technology we use every day. For example, GPS, like many technological advances, began as highly-classified projects in the Air Force and Space Force. Some of the latest Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) projects and innovations they’re currently working include the technology to prevent injury and to keep Airmen safe. This includes use of advanced wearable technologies such as shirt-integrated sensors and health-monitoring patches. This technology allows for crucial information to be transmitted quickly and seamlessly and ultimately increases the forces mission effectiveness and readiness.

As we celebrate the birthday of the U.S. Air Force, I ask that you remember not only our Airmen, but also our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Guardians, who are deployed all over the world ensuring our freedom, and their families.

Happy Birthday to the United States Air Force!

Aim High, Fly-Fight-Win!
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Roy Roberts, the ChiefExecutive Officer of Ckrush, Inc.. (the‘‘Company’’), certify, pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that tothe best of my knowledge:

|           |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September30,  2006 (the ‘‘Report’’) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                    |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. |

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCkrush, Inc. and will be retained by Ckrush, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

|  | /s/ RoyRoberts                                                 |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | RoyRobertsChief Executive Officer(Principal ExecutiveOfficer)    November  14,2006 |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
No. 10-6503.

#### Armando Minero-Regalado, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 435,

178 L. Ed. 2d 337,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8208.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 651.