alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arturo Aguila, Appellant, v Jose D. Benitez et al., Respondents.

[67 NYS3d 196]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating plaintiff’s negligence. Defendants submitted the deposition testimony of both drivers, which established that the accident occurred when plaintiff attempted to make a left turn from the right-hand lane of the Cross Bronx Expressway service road, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (c), and struck the side of defendants’ vehicle as it was lawfully driving through the intersection *(see Maysonet v EAN Holdings, LLC,*137 AD3d 517 [1st Dept 2016]; *Foreman v Skeif,*115 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2014]; *Mora v Garcia,*3 AD3d 478 [2d Dept 2004]). Further, plaintiff admitted that he did not turn on his left-turn signal until right before he started the turn and that he did not see defendants’ vehicle to his left until he struck it.

Defendant driver’s testimony established his lack of comparative fault. He testified that he was driving within the speed limit, with the traffic light in his favor, and could not avoid the accident since his vehicle was ahead of plaintiff’s vehicle when plaintiff’s vehicle hit the side of his vehicle. In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit anything other than conclusory and speculative assertions, and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to defendant driver’s comparative negligence *(see Revels v Schoeps,*140 AD3d 661, 662 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 911 [2016]; *Foreman,*115 AD3d at 569; *Mora,*3 AD3d at 479).

Concur—Tom, J.R, Friedman, Renwick, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2











THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906


OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Monarch Cement Company and will be retained by The Monarch Cement Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.













Dated:  August 10, 2009




/s/ Debra P. Roe


Debra P. Roe, CPA


Chief Financial Officer and


Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
No. 10-5771.

#### Thane Thompson, Petitioner v. Florida.

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

178 L. Ed. 2d 297,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7950.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 25 So. 3d 646.
No. 09-11041.

#### Gerald Keller, Petitioner v. Georgia.

562 U.S. 860, 131 S. Ct. 134,

178 L. Ed. 2d 81,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5914.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
No. 10-6582.

#### Ralph Williams, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 991, 131 S. Ct. 440,

178 L. Ed. 2d 341,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8194.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 259.
No. D-2563.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Joseph Cosmas Steinkrauss.

562 U.S. 817, 131 S. Ct. 409,

178 L. Ed. 2d 273,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7588.

October 4, 2010.

Joseph Cosmas Stein-krauss, of Lexington, Massachusetts, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show *274cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### People v King

4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1599

denied*

*

 Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.
No. 10-5487.

#### Michael J. Sullivan, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 924, 131 S. Ct. 307,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7476.

178 L. Ed. 2d 200,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
# DLA Distribution hosts 5k and chili cook-off to raise money for CFC

/ Published Nov. 23, 2015
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution headquarters hosted a 5k and chili cook-off to raise money for the Combined Federal Campaign this past week. 

On Nov. 17, employees took a break from the workday grind to run or walk their choice of five or three kilometers during the lunchtime event. Forty-four teammates participated in this year’s event raising more than $500, making it the third highest fund raiser in three years.  

Eric Sweeny, DLA Distribution headquarters employee, was the top male 5k finisher, while Elise Holtan of DLA Distribution Susquehanna claimed the women’s top spot.

The second of the two events, a chili cook-off, was held Nov. 18, and featured ten different styles of chili, submitted by eight different competitors. Chili’s created with everything from venison and turkey to ghost peppers and even a nod to the Caribbean culture, vied for the top prize.

The official judging panel consisted of chief integration officer Perry Knight and Future Operations team member Jim Blockus. Additionally, employees participated in the competition to determine the “People’s Choice” winner.

“I feel like after eating this one, I will burst into flames! You outdid yourself,” said Knight to one of the cook off participants.

After careful taste testing and deliberations, the judges favorite, Command Affairs’ own Kevin Davis, was presented with the coveted 2015 chili cook-off trophy for his trio of chili’s; venison, mild and hot. Bringing home the “People’s Choice” award was Future Plans team member Matt Williams, for his “Zombie Reckoning” concoction.

In total, DLA Distribution employees donated more than $150 to CFC by participating in this event.

Blockus summed it up by saying “I have some Zantac at my desk if anyone needs it!”
No. 10-5244.

#### James Daughty, Petitioner v. Steve Larkins, Warden.

562 U.S. 911, 131 S. Ct. 265,

178 L. Ed. 2d 174,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6921.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16717]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-140-001]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Filing

June 18, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 12, 1998, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee), filed pro forma Tariff Sheets 405C and 405D.
    Tennessee states that the pro forma tariff sheets are being filed 
in response to the May 5, 1998 technical conference, in response to 
certain issues raised by Commission Staff and the customers in 
attendance, Tennessee proposed additional modifications to its 
currently effective tariff sheet, specifically to the tariff provision 
that allows Tennessee to reserve available capacity for future 
expansion projects. Tennessee further states that it committed to file 
these proposed modifications, in this docket and on pro forma tariff 
sheets, by June 12, 1998.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16717 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2015205EN.01004201.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/42

---

Order of the General Court of 17 April 2015 — Microsoft v OHIM — Softkinetic Software (KINECT)

(Case T-536/13) (1)

1

(2015/C 205/56)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

1

---
# Embrace diversity with the 2016 DSCC Installation People and Culture

/ Published July 28, 2016
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC) is celebrating the diversity of its 9,000-plus member workforce at the 2016 DSCC Installation People and Culture events Aug. 3.The theme is “E Pluribus Unum,” “Out of Many One,” a phrase that captures the symbolism of unity.  The purpose of the event is to bring the virtual workforce together to embrace our diversity, enhance cultural understanding, and strengthen the unity of the DSCC workforce.DLA Land and Maritime, Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Columbus (DFAS), and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) special emphasis programs are hosting the “Culture” side of this event, which includes activities such as cultural expression, cultural food samples, and educational booths. The timeline of the events are as follows:11:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Opening Ceremony (Bldgs. 20 & 21 South side parking flag poles).11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. EEO SEP Displays & Passport/ Cultural Food Samples (Bldg. 20 Cardinal and Buckeye Room, and Bldg. 21 C136 & C137).1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Cultural Talent Showcase (Bldg. 11, Auditorium).2:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Cultural Passport Stations Giveaway (Bldg.20, Cardinal Room)Some of the performances for the Cultural Talent Showcase include a saxophone player, African-American history skit, singing, playing guitar, Hula dancer, poems, and a “Red Carpet” backdrop for associates to take pictures. The EEO SEP mission leverages DSCC’s diversity through inclusionary management, behavior and practices. It provides training to the workforce regarding diversity and inclusion to foster a cohesive, resilient, diverse, and inclusive environment. In addition, it conducts barrier analysis regarding the employment and advancement of women, underrepresented minorities, and people with disabilities. EEO also prioritizes identified barriers; develops feasible solution and presents findings and recommendations to mitigate identified barriers.The DLA Columbus SEPs are the following:  Federal Women's Program (FWP), Hispanic Employment Program (HEP), Asian/Pacific American Employment Program (APA), People with Disabilities Program (PWDP), African-American Employment Program (AAEP), Native American/Alaskan Native Employment Program (NAANEP), European American Program (EAP), Veterans Employment Program (VEP), and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Employment Program (LGBTEP).For more information, related to the “Culture” side of the events, please contact Frances R. Quinones, EEO Specialist/ SEPs & Affirmative Employment Program Manager, at (614) 692-7908.
# C_2016402EN.01002601.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Lundbeck v Commission

(Case T-472/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and generic undertakings - Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU - Errors of law and of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Legal certainty - Fines))

(2016/C 402/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: H. Lundbeck A/S (Valby, Denmark) and Lundbeck Ltd (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, and T. Kuhn, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Bourke, F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin, T. Vecchi and C. Vollrath, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin, T. Vecchi, C. Vollrath and T. Christoforou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicants: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and M. Healy, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the applicants:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders H. Lundbeck A/S and Lundbeck Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders H. Lundbeck A/S and Lundbeck Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission’s costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
# C_2017014EN.01003001.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2016 — Ipatau v Council

(Joined Cases T-694/13 and T-2/15) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through European Union territory - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality))

(2017/C 014/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 69), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 1), Council Decision 2014/750/CFSP of 30 October 2014 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2014 L 311, p. 39) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2014 L 311, p. 2), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Mr Vadzim Ipatau to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Vadzim Ipatau to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 16.1



February 9, 2005

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We have read the statements made by Loudeye Corp.(copy attached), which we
understand will be filed with the Commission as part of the Company's Form
10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004. We agree with the statements
concerning our Firm in such Form 10-Q/A.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP ("PWC") makes no comment whatsoever on the current
status of the material weaknesses identified or to any remedies applicable
thereto.

Sincerely,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
# Newest PaCErs celebrate the holidays while reflecting on first few months in program

/ Published Dec. 27, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
The Frank B. Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia has hosted its share of special events, i.e. retirement and promotion ceremonies, town halls, and various themed parties.

One particular event held there Dec. 20 had special meaning for close to 20 Defense Logistics Agency Pathways to Career Excellence (PaCE) Program participants. As mellow, festive holiday music flowed throughout the air, they talked, laughed, ate breakfast and shared experiences of what it’s been like in the program since August.

PaCE is a two-year training program designed to train entry-level employees for advancement in supply, technical quality, procurement and finance fields through on-the-job work assignments, cross-training, rotational assignments, and formal training. (e.g. classroom, distance learning, web-based training, conferences and seminars).

Antwan Jarrett is one of those just starting a career supporting the nations warfighters through the PaCE program. He’s assigned to the DLA Aviation’s Procurement Process Support Directorate’s Training Branch in training to be a contract specialist. He said the get together was very beneficial.

“It gave us an opportunity to let loose a little bit and enjoy each other’s company without thinking about work. It also gave us a time to build chemistry amongst one another while still having fun. It was a great event to end the year on a positive note.” Jarrett said.

Alicia Jackson, a supervisory procurement analyst/PaCEr supervisor within DLA Aviation’s Procurement Process Support Directorate’s Training Branch, organized the event.

“The idea behind the gathering was to allow each PaCEr the opportunity to network with each other and build lasting relationship that will carry them throughout their career at DLA,” Jackson said.

Jackson said she also wanted to create an opportunity for these new PaCErs to pick the brains of those who are also still in the program, but already going through foundational training.

There is where Andrew Kish comes in. He started in the PaCE program in December 2021 and is now training as a contract specialist in DLA Aviation’s Supplier Operations Original Equipment Manufacturer Directorate.

Kish was invited to address this new group of PaCErs about what they expect moving forward.

“It was an honor to be asked to speak with the PaCErs and share my experiences in the program so far. It was great to meet everyone and hear different perspectives about the program,” Kish said.

PaCErs also got a chance to hear from DLA Aviation’s Procurement Process Support Directorate Director Martha Tuck.

After the gathering wrapped up, Jarrett took time to reflect on his time in the program thus far.

“The biggest challenges I’ve experienced are learning how to navigate the various systems, understanding the plethora of acronyms, being courageous enough to speak up when I don’t understand something and just staying focused throughout the long training days,” Jarrett said.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined t hat this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20369

(Summary Calendar)

DEBBIE ESPINOSA, Individually and

on behalf of the Estate of Robert Espinosa

a/n/f of Dustin and Devin Espinosa and

Dorene Gonzales, Minors; MARY ESPINOSA;

RUDOLPH ESPINOSA,

Plaint iffs-Appellant s,

versus

GERALD J. MORAN, ET AL.,

Defendants,

CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-2978)

December 23, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The wife, minor children, and parents of Robert Espinosa appeal the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to the City of Houston on wrongful death claims brought by the Espinosas under2

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Texas Tort Claims Act. Having reviewed the Espinosas’ arguments and

the record on appeal d e novo, we affirm the judgment regarding the Espinosas’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claims for the same reasons stated by the district court. Espinosa v. Moran, et al.

, No. CA-H-94-2978

(S.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 1996). Specifically, the Espinosas have not raised a genuine issue of material fact

regarding their § 1983 claim because they have not produced any evidence implicat ing a po licy,

custom or practice of the City of Houston as required under Monell v. Dept. of Social Svcs. of the

City of N.Y. , 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).

The Espinosas argue that the district court granted summary judgment on their stat e law

negligence claims sua sponte without giving them ten days advance notice as required by law. The

claims which the Espinosas argue that the district court improperly dismissed, however, were not

specifically outlined in their amended complaint as required under the Texas Tort Claims Act. See

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 101.021 (West 1996); Dear v. City of Irving , 902 S.W.2d 731,

737 (Tex. App.-- Dallas 1995, writ denied). Thus, the evidence the Espinosas maintain they would

have presented to the district court if the court had not granted summary judgment sua sponte does

not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the claims pleaded in their amended complaint.

AFFIRMED.