alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6256.

#### Dennis Earl Ledbetter, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 973, 131 S. Ct. 487,

178 L. Ed. 2d 308,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8022.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 292.
No. 10-7073.

#### John Forrest, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1053, 131 S. Ct. 622,

178 L. Ed. 2d 451,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8886.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 611 F.3d 908.
#### People v Clemente

2d Dept: 139 AD3d 751 (Queens)

denied 8/11/16 (Rivera, J.)
No. 10-122.

#### North Star Alaska Housing Corporation, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1108, 131 S. Ct. 819,

178 L. Ed. 2d 555,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9724.

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 356 Fed. Appx. 415.
No. 10-6310.

#### David Webb, Petitioner v. Janine M. Kern, Judge, Circuit Court of South Dakota, Pennington County, et al.

562 U.S. 1032, 131 S. Ct. 572,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8667,

178 L. Ed. 2d 418,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
#### People v Castaneda

County Ct, 5/23/16 (Monroe)

denied 8/10/16 (Fahey, J.)
# C_2014015EN.01001001.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket

(Case C-569/13)

2014/C 15/14

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bricmate AB

Applicant:

Defendant: Tullverket

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 (1) of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1) invalid on any one of the following grounds:

1

| 1. | that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of fact, |
| --- | --- |

1.

that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of fact,

| 2. | that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of assessment, |
| --- | --- |

2.

that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of assessment,

| 3. | that the Commission has failed in its obligation to exercise due care and has disregarded Article 3(2) and (6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51), |
| --- | --- |

3.

that the Commission has failed in its obligation to exercise due care and has disregarded Article 3(2) and (6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51),

2

| 4. | that the Commission has disregarded its obligations under Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 and has disregarded the company’s rights of the defence, |
| --- | --- |

4.

that the Commission has disregarded its obligations under Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 and has disregarded the company’s rights of the defence,

| 5. | that the Commission, contrary to Article 17 of Regulation No 1225/2009, has failed to take into account the information which the company supplied, and/or |
| --- | --- |

5.

that the Commission, contrary to Article 17 of Regulation No 1225/2009, has failed to take into account the information which the company supplied, and/or

| 6. | that the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons (pursuant to Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)? |
| --- | --- |

6.

that the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons (pursuant to Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)?

---

(1)  OJ L 238, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 343, p. 51.

2

---
No. 10-271.

#### David George Chandler, Petitioner v. Rick Coursey, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 512,

178 L. Ed. 2d 372,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8616.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 830.
#### Sharon Carroll, Derivatively on Behalf of Citigroup, Inc., Appellant, v Sanford I. Weill et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[767 NYS2d 627]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered October 17, 2002, which dismissed the *153complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 8, 2002, which granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Delaware, the state of incorporation, where shareholder derivative actions challenging these same transactions were already being litigated, has a paramount interest in claims involving the corporation’s internal affairs *(see Sturman v Singer,*213 AD2d 324 [1995]; *Hart v General Motors Corp.,*129 AD2d 179 [1987], *lv denied*70 NY2d 608 [1987]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2725 

To provide duty-free treatment for the sale of used yachts, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2019 

Mr. MAST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide duty-free treatment for the sale of used yachts, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Maritime Industries 

5 Relief Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR THE SALE OF USED 

7 YACHTS. 

8 Section 484b of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

9 1484b) is amended to read as follows: 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2725 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 484b. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR THE SALE OF 

2 USED YACHTS. 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro4 vision of law, any dutiable vessel meeting the definition 

5 of a used yacht under subsection (b) may be offered for 

6 sale or sold in the customs territory of the United States 

7 without payment of duty. 

8 ‘‘(b) USED YACHT DEFINED.—For purposes of duty9 free treatment under subsection (a), the term ‘used yacht’ 

10 means a vessel classifiable under heading 8903 of the Har11 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States that was— 

12 ‘‘(1) sold at least once before entering the cus13 toms territory of the United States; and 

14 ‘‘(2) used, by the person bringing such vessel 

15 into the customs territory of the United States, pri16 marily for recreation or pleasure. 

17 ‘‘(c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

18 is authorized to make such rules and regulations as may 

19 be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.’’. 

20 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

21 The amendment made by section 2 shall apply with 

22 respect to any used yachts imported into the United States 

23 after the date that is 15 days after the date of the enact24 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
No. 09-9264.

#### Daniel Guzman-Padilla, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 949, 131 S. Ct. 67,

178 L. Ed. 2d 245,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7768.

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, 573 F.3d 865.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW INCLUDED IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         466,663
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,230,759
<PP&E>                                      19,635,709
<DEPRECIATION>                              (3,965,957)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,966,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,117,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       35,067,372
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,279
<OTHER-SE>                                 (14,648,602)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,966,401
<SALES>                                        145,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,953
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,132,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             159,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (27,160,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (27,160,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (27,660,200)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.77)


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

Submitted March 27, 2017;

decided March 30, 2017

*944Motion by The Innocence Project, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.

Judge Wilson taking no part.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2409 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2409

 For the relief of D.W. Jacobson, Ronald Karkala, and Paul Bjorgen of 
                        Grand Rapids, Minnesota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              August 19 (legislative day, August 18), 1994

Mr. Durenberger introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 For the relief of D.W. Jacobson, Ronald Karkala, and Paul Bjorgen of 
                        Grand Rapids, Minnesota.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of 
$3,391,404.50 jointly to D.W. Jacobson, Ronald Karkala, and Paul 
Bjorgen of Norwood Manufacturing, Inc. (now dissolved) of Grand Rapids, 
Minnesota, for damages incurred relating to the termination of a 
contract with the United States Postal Service for the manufacture of 
wooden pallets.
    Sec. 2. (a) The payment made pursuant to the first section of this 
Act shall constitute full settlement of all legal and equitable claims 
by D.W. Jacobson, Ronald Karkala, and Paul Bjorgen of Norwood 
Manufacturing, Inc. (now dissolved) of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, against 
the United States.
    (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as an inference of 
liability on the part of the United States.
    Sec. 3. No part of the amount appropriated in this Act in excess of 
10 percent thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any 
agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with 
this Act, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the contrary 
notwithstanding. Violation of the provisions of this section is a 
misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-6616.

#### Troy Anthony Francis Gordon, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1054, 131 S. Ct. 610,

178 L. Ed. 2d 453,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8935.

November 15, 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, 368 Fed. Appx. 250.
No. 10-7274.

#### Eugene Wideman, Petitioner v. Colorado, et al.

562 U.S. 1133, 131 S. Ct. 976,

178 L. Ed. 2d 745,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 497,

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until January 31, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 409 Fed. Appx. 184.
# DLA Energy leadership changes command in Japan

/ Published July 7, 2022
YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan, 
Defense Logistics Agency Energy Japan welcomed Air Force Lt. Col. James Smith and bid goodbye to Air Force Maj. Charles Coffman during a virtual change of command ceremony on Yokota Air Base, June 27.

DLA Indo-Pacific Commander Navy Capt. Patrick Blake presided over the ceremony from DLA Indo-Pacific headquarters at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii.

Coffman received the Defense Meritorious Service Medal for the two years he led the DLA Energy Japan team. He oversaw the sustainment of 150 retail locations and 16 Defense Fuel Support Points with over 400 million gallons of strategic fuel supporting missions across all service components in the U.S. Indo-Pacific theater of operations. Additionally, he managed $752 million in throughput and capitalized sales of petroleum supporting 96,000 personnel in Japan and 13 million gallons of fuel support to the Japanese Self Defense Forces via Fuels Exchange Agreement strengthening the ties with the strategic partner. 

“The men and women of team DLA Energy Japan would like to extend our sincere appreciation to Major Coffman for his leadership and personal contributions during his tenure,” said Caleb Whitaker, DLA Energy Japan Deputy Director. “We would also like to extend a warm welcome to Lt. Col. Smith and his family as they join our amazing team.”

DLA Energy Japan’s mission is to provide United States Forces and government agencies in Japan the most effective and efficient petroleum support possible through dedicated partnership with the U.S. Forces Japan, its customers, and its suppliers. DLA Energy Japan supports U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, U.S. Forces Japan, its component commanders, and their 130,000 military, civilian, dependents and local nationals across area.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Figueroa, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 682]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 13, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as an administrative assistant at a school after she began yelling and threatening to sue as a result of her health insurance coverage being delayed. When claimant refused to abide by the director’s order to leave, the police were called. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, reversing the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, found that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct and denied her application for benefits. It is well settled that insubordination and offensive behavior in the work place can constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Sarmiento [Newsday, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor],*287 AD2d 851 [2001]; *Matter of Puente [Commissioner of Labor],*270 AD2d 555 [2000], *lv dismissed*95 NY2d 896 [2000]). Given the employer’s version of claimant’s conduct which included threats *953and abusive language, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Board that claimant’s insubordination amounted to disqualifying misconduct. Although claimant admits to being upset, she denied the employer’s contention that she was abusive or out of control. Nevertheless, it is within the purview of the Board to resolve credibility issues, even if it differs from that reached by the Administrative Law Judge (see *Matter of Berry [E.J. Noble Hosp./Samaritan Med. Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor],*264 AD2d 923 [1999]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Cilibrasi, Petitioner, v Danny Chun et al., Respondents.

[53 NYS3d 563]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with an underlying criminal prosecution entitled *People v Cilibrasi,*pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 5860/15, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Balkin, J.P., Sgroi, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Fusco, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 631]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), rendered April 15, 2016, convicting him of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Prior to the imposition of sentence upon the defendant’s *777conviction of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty to that charge. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion. The record establishes that the defendant’s plea of guilty was “ ‘entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently’ ” *(People v Haffiz,*19 NY3d 883, 884 [2012], quoting *People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; *see People v Grant,*61 AD3d 177, 182 [2009]; *People v Pierre,*8 AD3d 904, 905 [2004]).

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Mack,*142 AD3d 1185, 1185 [2016]; *People v Flores,*139 AD3d 753, 753 [2016]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5546.

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

562 U.S. 928, 131 S. Ct. 316,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7495.

178 L. Ed. 2d 206,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 653.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company's quarterly report on
Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of
Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of
Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and
(B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.

|Date: November 9, 2007 |  | /s/MARK T. FROSTName: Mark T. Frost
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
No. 10-5070.

#### Ronald G. Dandar, Petitioner v. Mark Krysevig, et al.

562 U.S. 1042, 131 S. Ct. 625,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8843.

178 L. Ed. 2d 432,

November 15, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In our capacities as President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Stressgen Biotechnologies Corporation (the "Company")
we hereby certify based on our respective knowledge that: (a) the enclosed Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (b) the information
contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Quarterly
Report.

|/s/DANIEL L. KORPOLINSKIDaniel L. Korpolinski
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/DONALD D. TARTREDonald D. Tartre
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer      |  | 

---

QuickLinks
No. 10-6243.

#### Charles A. Borowy, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1092, 131 S. Ct. 795,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9453.

178 L. Ed. 2d 533,

December 6, 2010.

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

Same case below, 595 F.3d 1045.