alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clarence Little, Respondent, v County of Nassau et al., Defendants, and 100 Black Men of Long Island Development Group, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[48 NYS3d 723]

*798In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an employment contract, the defendants 100 Black Men of Long Island Development Group, Inc., Floyd Arthur, Jeffrey Daniels, and Isaac Ephraim appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Janowitz, J.), dated May 6, 2015, and (2) an amended order of the same court dated May 11, 2015, which denied their motion to enforce a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 100 Black Men of Long Island Development Group, Inc.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 6, 2015, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the amended order dated May 11, 2015; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order dated May 11, 2015, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff, payable by the defendants 100 Black Men of Long Island Development Group, Inc., Floyd Arthur, Jeffrey Daniels, and Isaac Ephraim.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff and the appellants did not enter into an enforceable settlement agreement. To be enforceable, stipulations of settlement must conform to the criteria set forth in CPLR 2104 *(see Eastman v Steinhoff,*48 AD3d 738, 739 [2008]; *Marpe v Dolmetsch,*256 AD2d 914 [1998]). Where, as here, a settlement is not made in open court, CPLR 2104 provides: “An agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action . . . is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney.” The plain language of the statute directs that the agreement itself must be in writing and signed by the party to be bound or that party’s attorney *(see Bonnette v Long Is. Coll. Hosp.,*3 NY3d 281, 286 [2004]). In addition, since settlement agreements are subject to the principles of contract law, “for an enforceable agreement to exist, all material terms must be set forth and there must be a manifestation of mutual assent” *(Diarassouba v Urban,*71 AD3d 51, 60 [2009]).

Here, the alleged settlement agreement did not set forth all of the material terms of the settlement, and it was conditioned on the plaintiff’s counsel confirming that there were no “problems/issues under the General Obligations Law.” Accordingly, it constituted a mere agreement to agree, which is unenforceable (see *Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher,*52 NY2d 105, 109 [1981]; *De Well Container Shipping Corp. v Mingwei Guo,*126 AD3d 846, 847-848 [2015]).

Hall, J.P., Miller, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5766.

#### Kenneth K. Knight, Petitioner v. James A. Yates, Warden.

562 U.S. 966, 131 S. Ct. 466,

178 L. Ed. 2d 296,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8048.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# DLA Distribution Oklahoma City’s Driskell named GDE: Outstanding Employee with a Disability of the Year

/ Published June 30, 2015
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, 
Lynda Driskell, management analyst, with Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Oklahoma City, Okla., won the Global Distribution Excellence Outstanding Employee with a Disability of the Year. She was hired through the Workforce Recruitment Program for college students with disabilities, and has proven herself as the “go-to” person for last minute assistance with everything from helping with the annual DLA Employee Appreciation Picnic to writing standard operating procedures. 
As an individual with disabilities, she feels strongly that practice and perseverance have been the keys to overcoming her limitations. “We can all benefit from developing aspects of ourselves which are out of our comfort zone,” said Driskell.

Driskell viewed the internship as a way to fulfill the passion she’d always had to serve her country and support the Warfighter. Following her internship, she was hired as a full-time DLA Distribution Oklahoma City, Okla., employee. In her current position with the Performance Excellence Office, she works as a training coordinator, while handling duties in preparation for audit readiness and standardization at the site.

“Having completed over 160 new hire orientations and operations trainings, Lynda’s hospitality makes newly-hired and seasoned employees feel welcome as they arrive for classes,” said Ned LaViolette, director of DLA Distribution Oklahoma City.

Additionally, Driskell’s research, communication and training skills, as well as her experience in quality control and cost analysis, allowed for the flexibility needed to move from one area of work to another seamlessly. As an educational psychologist, she is aware of the importance of team members feeling appreciated and useful. She firmly believes that belonging to a group improves morale. 

“If morale is high, the DLA mission is enhanced and the Warfighters are optimally supported and served,” said Driskell.
No. 10-5228.

#### Rafael Barrios, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 953, 131 S. Ct. 261,

178 L. Ed. 2d 252,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7669.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 56.
2016-1792.

#### Jackson v. Friedlander.

Stark App. No. 2016CA00053, 2016-Ohio-7503.

O’Neill and DeWine, JJ., dissent.
EXHIBIT 23.2





CONSENT OF ODENBERG, ULLAKKO, MURANISHI & CO. LLP,


INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-89473, 333-23091, 333-39493, 333-54026, 333-122840, 333-122841, 333-132558, 333-132559, 333-143720, 333-157258, and 333-157262) of LaserCard Corporation of our report dated June 4, 2008, relating to the consolidated results of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended March 31, 2008, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.




We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated June 4, 2008 on the financial statement schedule for the year ended March 31, 2008 which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/Odenberg, Ullakko, Muranishi & Co. LLP




San Francisco, California


June 15, 2010
#### Billy Green, Jr., Respondent, v Simon Property Group, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. E.W. Howell Co., LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Metropolitan Construction Systems, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And Other Third-Party Actions.)

[54 NYS3d 287]

Appeals having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2017, and on or about January 24, 2017, and said appeals having been argued by counsel for the respective parties; and due deliberation having been had thereon, and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated June 9, 2017, it is unanimously ordered that said appeals be and the same are hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
No. 10-5972.

#### Paul Blackmer, Petitioner v. Dwayne Sweat, et al.

562 U.S. 984, 131 S. Ct. 421,

178 L. Ed. 2d 328,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8275,

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 10-5830.

#### Michael Leggins, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 938, 131 S. Ct. 350,

178 L. Ed. 2d 226,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7460.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-227.

#### James D. Schneller, Petitioner v. Prospect Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, et al.

562 U.S. 982, 131 S. Ct. 418,

178 L. Ed. 2d 323,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8145.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 298.
# C_2013108EN.01003902.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/39

---

Action brought on 28 January 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-8/13)

2013/C 108/92

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to confirm the applicant in his post as Head of Unit and to transfer him to the Directorate General for Internal Policies.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 23 March 2012 not to confirm the applicant in his post as Head of Unit and to transfer him with his post to the Directorate General for Internal Policies; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 23 March 2012 not to confirm the applicant in his post as Head of Unit and to transfer him with his post to the Directorate General for Internal Policies;

| — | so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 15 October 2012, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 22 June 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 15 October 2012, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 22 June 2012;

| — | order compensation for the material and non-material damage to the applicant resulting from those decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation for the material and non-material damage to the applicant resulting from those decisions;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
No. 09-9011.

#### Fangio Stanley Monfort, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 948, 131 S. Ct. 65,

178 L. Ed. 2d 244,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7742.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 320 Fed. Appx. 722.
EPA and Franklin Fueling Meeting

April 25, 2013

Attendees

EPA – Linda Gerber, Paul Miller, Erin Knighton, Liz McDermott, Cho Yi Kwan, Andrea 

Barbery

Franklin Fueling – Jay Walsh, Brooke Randall

EPA and Franklin Fueling met to discuss a number of issues from the proposed revisions to the 

UST regulations. The discussion included secondary containment, testing secondary

containment, biofuels and standards.
No. 09-9729.

#### Joshua Charles, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 842, 131 S. Ct. 71,

178 L. Ed. 2d 49,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5970.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 23 So. 3d 713.
No. 09-11533.

#### Mark Laurico-Yeno, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 886, 131 S. Ct. 216,

178 L. Ed. 2d 130,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6828.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 590 F.3d 818.
# C_2014253EN.01001501.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku (Poland) lodged on 30 September 2013 — Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz v Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

(Case C-520/13)

2014/C 253/19

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz

Applicants:

Defendant: Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

Defendant:

By order of 27 March 2014, the Court of Justice ruled that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku.

---
No. 10-5757.

#### Roderick Lee, Petitioner v. Nick Ludwick, Warden.

562 U.S. 966, 131 S. Ct. 465,

178 L. Ed. 2d 296,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8027.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Sep 21 2010

Mr. William Behe

2322 Beale Avenue Altoona, PA 16601

Dear Mr. Behe:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 61.197 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request, gives you some important information about how we have handled similar requests, and tells you what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your August 30, 2010, exemption request for William Behe into the public docket (No. FAA-2010-0889), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any more information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

How We Have Handled Similar Requests

It is important for you to know that we have issued denials of exemption in circumstances similar to those presented in your petition. We are enclosing for your review examples of these denials, Exemption Nos. 5076 and 8246. As noted in those denials, the FAA has determined that the petitioner did not substantiate how his situation was unique when compared to other holders of flight instructor certificates who must comply with the FAA’s instructor certification procedures. In addition,2

§ 61.199(a) also allows instructors to exchange hi s/her expired flight instructor certificate for a new certificate by passing the practical test prescribed in § 61.187.

Because the previous denials of exemption dealt with circumstances similar to those presented in your petition, there is little reason to believe that we would grant your petition for exemption.

What You Should Do

 Before we commit agency resources to process and analyze your exemption request, we suggest that you review the enclosed denials of exemption.

 If, after that review, you still want the agency to process your petition, you must tell us how the facts and circumstances of your par ticular situation are significantly different from the previous denials of exemption.

 Send the information about your particular situation, and the information we requested earlier in this letter that will enable us to process your request, to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open for that period.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do no hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without telling you

further.

If you have any questions or need more time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                       9,967
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              129,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                214,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           364,295
<PP&E>                                     216,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             873,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      206,877
<BONDS>                                    401,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 108,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               873,880
<SALES>                                    557,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           557,733
<CGS>                                      453,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              453,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            95,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          30,786
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (17,993)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (22,709)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (22,709)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                       773
<INVENTORY>                                     22,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,505
<PP&E>                                          35,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,392
<BONDS>                                        226,921
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           34,836
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                   (175,587)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,898
<SALES>                                         89,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,233
<CGS>                                           62,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,186
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,913)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,763)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,150)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,150)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roland Alburg, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 907]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered September 11, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, conspiracy in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, money laundering in the first degree, and money laundering in the second degree (five counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see *id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         100,152
<SECURITIES>                                    53,087
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                       555
<INVENTORY>                                      6,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               174,468
<PP&E>                                         231,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,396
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 709,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,147
<BONDS>                                        472,488
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   709,903
<SALES>                                          2,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,540
<CGS>                                            3,604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,191
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,864
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,906)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>