alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Frank Macksel, Petitioner, v Riverhead Central School District, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 585]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Riverhead Central School District dated January 8, 2002, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner committed misconduct pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 and terminated his employment as a bus driver.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, with costs, and the determination is annulled.

Hostile work environment sexual harassment exists when “the workplace is permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult’ that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment” *(Vitale v Rosina Food Prods.,*283 AD2d 141, 143 [2001], quoting *Harris v Forklift Sys.,*510 US 17, 21 [1993]; *see Espaillat v Breli Originals,*227 AD2d 266 [1996]). Whether a workplace may be *732viewed as hostile or abusive can be determined only by considering the totality of the circumstances *(see Harris v Forklift Sys., supra; Matter of Father Belle Community Ctr. v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*221 AD2d 44 [1996]). “ [Isolated remarks or occasional episodes of harassment will not support a finding of a hostile or abusive work environment” *(Matter of Father Belle Community Ctr. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, supra*at 51).

Here, the petitioner’s conduct was not so pervasive as to permeate the workplace and alter the conditions of employment for the two female complainants. Although both complainants testified that they were afraid of and felt uncomfortable around the petitioner, there was no evidence presented that his conduct interfered with their work performance. To the contrary, the complainants did not miss work after the subject incidents occurred, and continued to interact voluntarily with the petitioner.

Moreover, both women failed to communicate the unwelcomeness of the conduct by words or action *(see Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v Vinson, 477*US 57 [1986]; *Matter of Bartle v Mercado,*235 AD2d 651 [1997]). Accordingly, the respondent’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg,*47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]).

In view of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach the issue of whether the penalty imposed was so disproportionate to the charges so as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         1,569,309
<SECURITIES>                                   594,908
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,321
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,374,538
<PP&E>                                         267,811
<DEPRECIATION>                                 228,913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,440,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          20,897
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6,632,998
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,213,782)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,419,216
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,019
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  208,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,740)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,740)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,740)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)



</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Ingram

03/16/2016

478 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 485
No. 10-5222.

#### Everett Lowe, Petitioner v. Guy D. Pierce, Warden.

562 U.S. 910, 131 S. Ct. 260,

178 L. Ed. 2d 172,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6886.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Joseph D. Barbera 14706 NE Erickson Dr. La Center, WA 98629 Tel: 360 263 5359 United States Department ofTransportation Office of Hearings

Washington, DC In the Matter of: Joseph D. Barbera FAA Case No. 2013NM090056 FDMS No. FAA 2013-1083 Judge Richard Goodwin



### Response toOrdertoShowCause (dated 9 September 2014)

In response to paragraph 1 ofthe Order a) Answer to FAA's complaint -document accompanies this Response b) Response to all FAA's motions- documents accompany this Response c) All discovery requests received to date have been addressed. Additionally, on two separate occasions I asked the Complainant ifthere was any additional information required or if he had any concerns. On neitheroccasion did he request anything additional. In response to paragraph 2 ofthe Order 

### It is true that initially I did not respond in a timely manner. This was a layman's error, and does notaddress the heartofthe matter. The Complainant goes to great lengths to document how I was late in responding, but itshould also be noted that 

### ittookthe Complainant 73 days to answer (partially, neverfully) my Discovery requests. There are issues concerning facts and qualityofevidence. These are what are relevant. In reality, there is no reason why the Complainant and the Respondent should not be able to come to some mutuallyagreeable solution, avoiding the time and expense ofa formal hearing. In fact, we, the two parties, were very close to an agreementwhen I 

### 1offered to meetthe Complainant halfway. There really is no reason why a settlement could not be reached by October l 5t. A solution is likelyonlya phone call away. Ifthat is notobtainable, then I believe the case should be decided based upon the known facts and not because ofa procedural issue by a non-professional. This has been lingering over myfamilies head forovera full year now. Ifan administrative solution cannot be reached, it is my desire is to proceed to a hearing as soon as possible.



### 2Service List Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building
- Suite 2W1000 800 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20591 David Shayne, 

### Complainant's Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave., SW Renton, WA 98057 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

### Administrative LawJudge Office of Hearings, M-20 US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590



### 3
No. 10-6302.

#### Raul Perez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 974, 131 S. Ct. 490,

178 L. Ed. 2d 310,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7873.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           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 amended Annual Report of Poet Holdings, Inc.
         (the "COMPANY") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2002
         as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
         (the "REPORT"), I, Jochen Witte, President and Chief Executive Officer
         of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.



Date: April 30, 2003
                                       /s/ Jochen Witte
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Jochen Witte
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-5080.

#### Martin Benz Garcia, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 902, 131 S. Ct. 238,

178 L. Ed. 2d 158,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6160.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2014129EN.01000701.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux (France) lodged on 9 December 2013 — Thierry Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre Médoc and Préfet de la Gironde

(Case C-650/13)

(2014/C 129/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thierry Delvigne

Defendants: Commune de Lesparre Médoc and Préfet de la Gironde

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as preventing a provision of national law from maintaining a ban — which, moreover, is indefinite and disproportionate — on allowing persons who were convicted before the entry into force of a more lenient criminal law, namely, Law No 94-89 of 1 February 1994, to receive a lighter penalty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as preventing a provision of national law from maintaining a ban — which, moreover, is indefinite and disproportionate — on allowing persons who were convicted before the entry into force of a more lenient criminal law, namely, Law No 94-89 of 1 February 1994, to receive a lighter penalty?

| 2. | Is Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, applicable to elections to the European Parliament, to be interpreted as precluding the Member States of the European Union from making provision for a general, indefinite and automatic ban on exercising civil and political rights, in order to avoid creating any inequality of treatment between nationals of the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, applicable to elections to the European Parliament, to be interpreted as precluding the Member States of the European Union from making provision for a general, indefinite and automatic ban on exercising civil and political rights, in order to avoid creating any inequality of treatment between nationals of the Member States?

---
# C_2014431EN.01004501.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/45

---

Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — Norwood Industries (NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment)

(Case T-592/13) (1)

1

(2014/C 431/70)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
No. D-2502.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Bruce Nicholls.

562 U.S. 809, 131 S. Ct. 398,

178 L. Ed. 2d 263,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7515.

October 4, 2010.

Bruce Nicholls, of Gloucester, Massachusetts, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 *264days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17329]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project Nos. 13-007, 2047-003, 2060-003, 2084-007, 2318-004, 2320-013, 
2330-034, 2474-006, 2482-022, 2539-008, 2569-026, 2616-010, 2641-002, 
2645-070, 2696-005, 2701-026, 2713-037, 2837-005, 5984-023, 7320-010, 
7387-005, 11408-015, 4472-016, 6032-038]


Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Notice Rejecting Request for 
Rehearing

June 24, 1998.
    By letter order issued May 6, 1998, the Deputy Executive Director 
and Chief Financial Officer denied Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's 
(Niagara Mohawk) appeal of certain portions of the fiscal year 1997 
administrative annual charge bills for the above-captioned projects. On 
June 8, 1998, Niagara Mohawk filed a request for rehearing of that 
letter order with the Commission.
    Section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act \1\ requires an aggrieved 
party to file a request for rehearing within thirty days after the 
issuance of the Commission's order, in this case by June 5, 1998. 
Because the 30-day deadline for requesting rehearing is statutorily 
based, it cannot be extended and Niagara Mohawk's request for rehearing 
must be rejected as untimely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 825l.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing 
by the Commission of this rejection notice may be filed within 30 days 
of the date of issuance of this notice, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.713.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17329 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 21

Aberdeen Technical Services LLC
Advanced Repair Technology International Ltd
AdvanceMed Corporation
AT/Mexico Holdings Inc.
AT Professional Services Corporation
Dyn Funding Corporation
Dyn Marine Services, Inc.
Dyn Marine Services of Virginia, Inc.
Dyn/Mexico Holdings Inc.
Dyn Network Management, Inc.
Dyn Realty Corporation
Dyn Systems Technology, Inc.
Dyn Technical Services, Inc.
Dyn Trade Systems, Inc.
DynCIS, Inc.
DynComm 2000 LLC
DynCorp Advanced Repair Technology, Inc.
DynCorp Aerospace Operations Inc.
DynCorp Aerospace Operations (UK) Ltd.
DynCorp Aviation Services, Inc.
DynCorp Biotechnology and Health Services, Inc.
DynCorp de Honduras S. De R.L.
DynCorp Information & Enterprise Technology, Inc.
DynCorp Information Systems LLC
DynCorp International LLC
DynCorp International Services GmbH
DynCorp International Services, Inc.
DynCorp International Services Ltd.
DynCorp International Services Ltd.
DynCorp Management Resources, Inc.
DynCorp Management Resources LLC
DynCorp of Colorado, Inc.
DynCorp Panama, Inc.
DynCorp Procurement Systems, Inc.
DynCorp Property Management, Inc.
DynCorpServices.com, Inc.
DynCorp Technical Services LLC
DynCorp TechServ LLC
DynCorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc.
DynCorp Viar Inc.
DynEDRS, Inc.
DynEx, Inc.
DynKePRO LLC
DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Company
DynMeridian Corporation
DynPar L.L.C.
DynPort Vaccine Company LLC
DynSpace Corporation
DynTel Corporation
Grupo DynCorp de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
Healthcare Integrity Services LLC
New Mexico Technology Group LLC
Western Ranges LLC
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK DEVIN PARTMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00377-CMC-1)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Devin Partman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7208 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Devin Partman, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order 

denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as 

amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 

5239. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S Ct. 

383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. The district 

court denied Partman’s motion after assessing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

and sufficiently explained its reasons for the denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 

181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of 

compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7208 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1


         THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION IS PROVIDED BY THE UNDERSIGNED CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF CLARK, INC. ON THE BASIS OF
SUCH OFFICERS' KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Clark, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Tom Wamberg, President
and Chief Executive Officer and I, Jeffrey W. Lemajeur, Chief Financial Officer,
of the Company, hereby certify, 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, as
                  amended; and

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


                                             /s/ Tom Wamberg
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:    Tom Wamberg
                                             Title:   President and
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                             Date:    August 5, 2004


                                             /s/ Jeffrey W. Lemajeur
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:    Jeffrey W. Lemajeur
                                             Title:   Chief Financial Officer
                                             Date:    August 5, 2004






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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 27, 2016

Order 

January 27, 2016

152758(30)

COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 152758

COA: 322108

Saginaw CC: 2013-020416-NF

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before February 8, 2016.
No. 10-5499.

#### Florencio Espinoza-Fajardo, Petitioner v. United States.

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

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7282.

178 L. Ed. 2d 201,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 409.
# DLA Distribution hosts training on layout planning best practices 

/ Published March 28, 2024
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency experts recently took part in a series of trainings focused on storage efficiency initiatives that can impact and continuously improve Distribution Center storage and production operations across the network, March 18-20 at DLA Distribution Headquarters in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania.

During the three-day training session, experts from DLA Headquarters, DLA Distribution Headquarters, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California, DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, DLA Distribution Tobyhanna Pennsylvania, and DLA Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, learned more about the systematic layout planning and systematic handling analysis programs.

Hosted by the DLA Distribution Storage Program Management Office, the goal of the trainings was to help DLA achieve and execute storage compliance and space utilization programs that optimize and capitalize on Distribution’s capacity and capabilities.

“Arrangement of activity areas and allocation of space for storage and non-storage requirements is vital to efficient operations and optimal use of available capacity within a DLA Distribution Center,” said Joseph Murphy, storage specialist, DLA Distribution Storage Program Management Office. “Systematic Layout Planning is widely considered the world’s most practical and organized method for rearranging existing or laying out new facilities. Systematic Handling Analysis is considered the most organized approach for the analysis and evaluation of material handling methods and used by thousands of planners throughout the world.”

The concepts discussed during the training could be applied to distribution centers across the DLA enterprise to better support customers, according to attendee Amy Walker.

“The training emphasized the need for up front planning and a thorough understanding of both existing and future storage space needs,” said Walker, supply systems analyst, DLA Logistics Operations. “It provided several useful tools that DLA can use to gather data, document relationships, measure the effectiveness of current layouts and handling equipment, and design new or updated plans. Space continues to be a premium commodity, so we need to continuously ensure our operations are laid out in the most efficient and effective manner possible.”

The trainings were led by Lee Hales, Richard Muther and Associates. Future training opportunities for Systematic Layout Planning, Systematic Handling Analysis, and How to Lay Out a Warehouse or Distribution Center, will be available to self-register for through the Learning Management System.

“This training is an excellent opportunity to see how to universally analyze the current state of a distribution center warehouse, optimize the layout, and select the correct equipment based on customer requirements, contingencies, and future plans,” said Michael Stahl, industrial engineer, installation management Susquehanna. “I would recommend this to anyone involved in storage planning or engineering within a distribution center, especially those that are early in their career.”