alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Gennadiy Dikovskiy, Respondent, v New York City Board of Education, Doing Business as New York City Department of Education, et al., Appellants.

[69 NYS3d 600]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered August 29, 2016, denying respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, granting the petition, and vacating the penalty in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where, as here, the parties have submitted to compulsory arbitration, the hearing officer’s determination must be in accord with due process, supported by adequate evidence, and rational, and must not be arbitrary and capricious *(see Matter*
      *502
      *of Asch v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.,*104 AD3d 415, 418-419 [1st Dept 2013]).

The motion court properly concluded that the hearing officer’s determination was arbitrary and capricious, and not supported by the record. There was no evidence that petitioner teacher’s conduct toward a student violated any rule or regulation or was otherwise inappropriate. Moreover, respondents’ various training materials encouraged teachers to interact with students outside the classroom to foster student development, and the alleged “inappropriate” conduct was not sufficiently defined so as to put petitioner on notice as to what constituted misconduct. Furthermore, based on our review of the video, we do not find that the teacher engaged in any inappropriate behavior with a student.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
#### Com. v. Reed

03/23/2016

765 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 66
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from consolidated
financial statements found on the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, June 30, 1998,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                                       558
<SECURITIES>                                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                              7,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  75
<INVENTORY>                                                               19,678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                          30,804
<PP&E>                                                                    14,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                                             5,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                            44,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                     12,360
<BONDS>                                                                   12,265
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                                     104
<OTHER-SE>                                                                19,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                              44,095
<SALES>                                                                   24,951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                          24,951
<CGS>                                                                     16,979
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                             16,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                           564
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                              666
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                 147
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                          519
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                                 519
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                               0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                               0.05
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**














CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










I,
      William R. Walker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of hi/fn, inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of hi/fn, inc.







May
                10, 2007
            /s/
                WILLIAM R. WALKERWilliam
                R. WalkerChief
                Financial Officer
19

- 1668

- cv Henry v. Oluwole

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED

BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE

NOTATION “SUMMARY O RDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Squ are, in the City of New York on the

1 st day of April, two thousand twenty

.

Present: DENNIS JACOBS

, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges

. MARK A. BARNETT

, Judge

. 1

_____________________________________________________

LAURA HENRY

,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

v. 19

- 1668

- cv

OLAKUNLE OLUWOLE, M.D.

,

Defendan t

- Appell ant

. *

_____________________________________________________

Appearing for Appellant: John F. Costa, Ryan Ryan Deluca LLP, Bridgeport, CT

.

Appearing for Appellee: Richard C. Gordon

, West Hartford , CT

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ( Underhill

, J. ).

1 Judge Mark A. Barnett, United States District Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to amend the of ficial caption as set forth above.ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSE D

.

Olakunle Oluwole appeals from the May 14, 2019 order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Underhill, J. ) denying his motion for reconsideration of the order of the district court denying his motion to set aside default judgment. We a ssume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for

review.

The orders appealed from are nonfinal interlocutory orders. See Enron Oil Corp. v.

Diakuhara , 10 F.3d 90, 97 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[D]efault j udgment cannot be entered until the amount of damages has been ascertained.”); Dow Chem. Pac. Ltd. v. Rascator Mar

. S.A. , 782 F.2d 329, 336 (2d Cir. 1986) (concluding that default judgment was “in fact no more than another interlocutory entry of default” b ecause the district court “expressly ordered [in its default judgment] that there be an inquest as to damages and indicated that only thereafter would a final judgment be entered”). When the district court in the present case entered its order of default j udgment, it did not decide the issue of damages, which remains pending before the district court. In the absence of a final judgment, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

We have considered the remainder of the parties’ arguments regarding jurisdiction and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                            NINE MONTHS   THREE MONTHS      YEAR
                                YEARS ENDED NOVEMBER 30        ENDED         ENDED          ENDED
                              ---------------------------   NOVEMBER 30   FEBRUARY 28,   NOVEMBER 30
                               2001      2000      1999        1998           1998          1997
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)        -------   -------   -------   -----------   ------------   -----------
<S>                           <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>           <C>            <C>
Income (Loss) from
  continuing operations
  before taxes..............  (31,914)   18,395   (14,000)    (24,551)       3,807          8,877
                              =======   =======   =======     =======        =====         ======
Fixed Charges:
  Interest..................   40,105    43,989    45,475      33,477        4,104         26,722
  Interest factor portion of
     rentals................    1,710     1,440     1,560       1,110          360          1,740
                              -------   -------   -------     -------        -----         ------
       Total fixed
          charges...........   41,815    45,429    47,035      34,587        4,464         28,462
                              -------   -------   -------     -------        -----         ------
Earnings before income taxes
  and fixed charges.........   81,920    89,418    92,510      68,064        8,568         (1,740)
                              =======   =======   =======     =======        =====         ======
Preferred stock dividends...   13,282    11,848    10,569       7,382           --             --
                              =======   =======   =======     =======        =====         ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges and preferred
  stock dividends...........     0.44      0.78      0.95        0.24         1.85           1.31
                              =======   =======   =======     =======        =====         ======
Earnings inadequate to cover
  fixed charges and
  preferred stock
  dividends.................  (31,033)  (12,602)   (3,612)    (31,933)
                              =======   =======   =======     =======        =====         ======
</Table>
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Notices 33989

1A copy of this list may be obtained by

contacting Ms. Neila Sheahan, Assistant General

Counsel, at 202/619–5030, and the address is Room

700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 Fourth Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20547–0001.

UNITED STATES INFORMATION

AGENCY

Culturally Significant Objects Imported

for Exhibition: Determinations

Notice is hereby given of the

following determinations: Pursuant to

the authority vested in me by the Act of

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C.

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March

27, 1978 (43 FR 13359, March 29, 1978),

and Delegation Order No. 85–5 of June

27, 1985 (50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I

hereby determine that the objects to be

included in the exhibit ‘‘Sacred Visions:

Early Painting from Tibet’’ (see list 1),

imported from abroad for the temporary

exhibition without profit within the

United States, are of cultural

significance. These objects are imported

pursuant to loan agreements with the

foreign lenders. I also determine that the

exhibition or display of the listed

exhibit objects at The Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York, New York,

from on or about October 5, 1998, to on

or about January 17, 1999, is in the

national interest. Public Notice of these

determinations is ordered to be

published in the Federal Register.

Dated: June 16, 1998.

Les Jin,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 98–16446 Filed 6–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M
#### The Robbins & Graham Company, a Florida Corporation, *Appellant,*vs. John Bensen, Adolph Bensen and Atley M. Bensen, formerly doing business as Bensen Brothers, and Homer A. Hoskins and Mabel B. Hoskins, his wife; Fred Feb and Emma M. Fee, his wife, *Appellees.*

144 So. 653.

Division A.

Decision filed November 21, 1932.

*Fee •& Liddtin*for Appellant;

*W. G. Vaughn*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
# C_2015198EN.01003802.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/38

---

Order of the General Court of 21 April 2015 — Real Express v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)

(Case T-580/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark real - Earlier national figurative marks Real and Real mark - Rejection of the opposition - Rule 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95))

(2015/C 198/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Real Express Srl (Romania) (represented by: C. Anitoae, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh and J. Crespo Carrillo, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2013 (Case R 1519/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Real Express SRL and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Real Express SRL is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Real Express SRL is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
# National Fire Prevention Week spreads like wildfire on DSCR 

/ Published Oct. 18, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond’s Fire and Emergency Services kicked off National Fire Prevention Week Oct. 10 on Defense Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia. Throughout the week, fire and emergency personnel promoted fire safety. This year’s theme "Cooking safety begins with YOU. Pay attention to fire prevention," focuses on actions that can be taken to protect yourself and those around you while cooking.

“National Fire Prevention Week is an opportunity for our team get the safety message out to the public about fire prevention.” said Assistant Chief, William Hock, who led the fire safety team that coordinated the week’s events.

Fire safety awareness began with a DLA fire inspector and Sparky the Fire Dog greeting employees as they entered through the gates to DSCR on their way to work. Displays were set up in the lobby of building 46 and 430 to bring further attention to fire safety.

During the week, DLA Fire and Emergency Service teams performed walk-throughs in office buildings to engage with employees, handing out fire safety pamphlets and promotional items such as oven mitts that emphasized the cooking safely theme.

Fire Inspector Noah McGee said, “We estimated about 243 contacts were made on our first day and about 139 on the second day.”

National Fire Prevention Week closed with an event at the fire station, which included children from the Child Development Center. The children were able to meet the firemen, spray a fire hose, and sit in the driver and crew seat of the fire truck, as well as play in the bouncy house.

“Teaching fire safety promotes safe habits in our everyday life,” Hock said. “Sharing the message with children will help them carry fire safety awareness into their adult lives.”

For more information on National Fire Prevention Week and this year’s theme, visit “Cooking safety starts with YOU.”
No. 10-6050.

#### Anthony Reynolds, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 970, 131 S. Ct. 479,

178 L. Ed. 2d 303,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8080.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 396 Ill. App. 3d 1128, 379 Ill. Dec. 372, 6 N.E.3d 449.
#### People v Ortiz (Jose)

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 448 (NY)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
No. 10-322.

#### In re Ade O. Ogunjobi, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 528,

178 L. Ed. 2d 409,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8429.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
# C_2015026EN.01002502.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2014 — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma v OHIM — Nepentes Pharma (Momarid)

(Case T-75/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Momarid - Earlier Community word mark LONARID - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relevant public - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 026/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Ingelheim, Germany) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nepentes Pharma sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, K. Dimidjian-Lecompte and C. Casalonga, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2012 (Case R 2292/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and Nepentes S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Case R 2292/2011-4) as regards ‘chemicals for pharmaceutical use’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Case R 2292/2011-4) as regards ‘chemicals for pharmaceutical use’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

1

---
No. 10-5312.

#### In re Lester J. Ruston, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 275,

178 L. Ed. 2d 261,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7795.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
[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: 98-16709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-604-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

June 18, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 11, 1998, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee), a Delaware corporation, P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 
77252, filed in Docket No. CP98-604-000 a request pursuant to Sections 
157.205, 157.212, and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.212, 157.216) for authorization to 
abandon and replace delivery facilities in Wayne County, Tennessee 
under Tennessee's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-413-000 
pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set 
forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    In order to meet company specifications and codes, Tennessee 
proposes to modify existing interconnecting pipe at milepost 556-1+5.75 
in Wayne County, Tennessee. To accomplish this upgrade, Tennessee 
proposes to remove and abandon approximately forty-five feet of 
existing one-inch diameter interconnecting pipe located at taps 556-
101.1 and 556-101.2 and extending to the inlet of the Waynesboro 
Tennessee sales meter and to replace it with approximately forty-five 
feet of two-inch diameter interconnecting pipe. Tennessee also proposes 
to replace a deteriorated check valve with a new valve of the same 
size.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16709 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-133967, 333-101391, 333-101389, 333-101388 and 333-101387) of Constar International Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial statementschedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Philadelphia, PA 

March 28, 2007