alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6458.

#### Daniel Wayne Kapetan, Petitioner v. Nevada.

562 U.S. 1048, 131 S. Ct. 606,

178 L. Ed. 2d 442,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8825.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Income and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          68,306
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,663
<INVENTORY>                                    159,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               440,452
<PP&E>                                         712,125
<DEPRECIATION>                                 363,953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 961,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          236,536
<BONDS>                                        180,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,984
<OTHER-SE>                                     347,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   961,776
<SALES>                                      1,147,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,159,066
<CGS>                                          735,367
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  735,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                111,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,991
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,427
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,427
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.41
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



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: August 9, 2012 |                                             
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                     | /s/ Thomas E. D’Ambra                       
|                     | Name: Thomas E. D’Ambra, Ph.D.              
|                     | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2015198EN.01005101.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/51

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 — Dimitriou v ENISA

(Case F-112/13) (1)

1

(2015/C 198/70)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 26.

1

---
Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10.10 
  
 COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
  
 Director Cash Fees 
  
 Each Non-Employee Director is paid an annual retainer of $30,000, payable quarterly in advance (February 1st, May 1st, August
1st and November 1st). In addition, each Non-Employee Director also receives a per meeting attendance fee of $1,000 and a fee of $500 for each Action by Written Consent of the Board of Directors and Board Committee. Board
Committee Chairs also receive an annual fee of $5,000. 
  
 Stock Option
Grants 
  
 Each Non-Employee Director receives an annual
grant of options to purchase 7,500 shares of Ann Taylor Stores Corporation Common Stock (“Common Stock”). The options are awarded after the Annual Meeting of Stockholders each year. All stock option awards have an exercise price equal to
the fair market value on the grant date (determined as the closing price on the preceding business day) of a share of Common Stock, a term of ten years and become exercisable and vest on the first anniversary of the date of grant. The stock options
of a Director who later ceases to be a Director for any reason other than removal for cause remain exercisable, to the extent exercisable at the time of termination, for one year following such termination but in no event later than the ten-year
term of the stock options. 
  
 A Non-Employee Director joining the
Board of Directors receives an initial grant of options to purchase 16,875 shares of Common Stock, on the same terms and conditions as described in the previous paragraph. 
  
 Travel Expense Reimbursements 
  
 Directors are entitled to reimbursement of their reasonable travel expenses for attending Board of Directors and Board Committee meetings. All travel
arrangements should be made through the Corporation’s Travel Department. Individuals should contact Emma Rubinov at (212) 536-4281. The Corporate Secretary’s Office will arrange for reimbursement upon receiving receipts for those expenses.
2016-1788.

#### State v. Romine.

Pickaway App. No. 16CA1, 2016-Ohio-5308.
Schedule of Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10(a)(3) 
  
 SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS 
  

			
	 	  	Form of
Contract


	 William F. Schwer
	  	A
	 Robert A. Peiser
	  	B
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended January 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter S. Teshima, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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) 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
for the periods presented therein.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Peter S.
Teshima                                      
|Peter S. Teshima                                             
|Corporate Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
|March 10, 2011
No. 09-1558.

#### Lorene Young, Petitioner v. Cargill.

562 U.S. 1086, 131 S. Ct. 688,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9304.

178 L. Ed. 2d 518,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 840, 131 S. Ct. 206, 178 L. Ed. 2d 46, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5812.
No. 10A357.

#### Family PAC, Applicant v. Rob McKenna, Attorney General of Washington, et al.

562 U.S. 958, 131 S. Ct. 500,

178 L. Ed. 2d 284,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8126.

October 12, 2010.

Application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case No. 10-35832, addressed to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Lema, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 656]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ann M. Don-nelly, J.), rendered September 8, 2015, as amended September 29, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of unlawful surveillance in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one to three years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Although defendant used a phone camera to record underneath women’s skirts on a subway train, no image of their “sexual or other intimate parts” (Penal Law § 250.45 [4]) resulted because of the dark lighting conditions. We conclude that the statute is satisfied so long as a defendant attempts to create such an image.

Penal Law § 250.45 (4) provides that a person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when, “[w]ithout the knowledge or consent of a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record, under the clothing being worn by such person, the sexual or other intimate parts of such person.” Notably, the statute does not require that there be any actual viewing, broadcasting, or recording. The statute uses the word “to,” which connotes purpose, *441but does not necessarily require consummation. Thus it can fairly be said that defendant used the device “to . . . record,” that is, for the *purpose*of creating a recording, even though that recording was never successfully made. This interpretation is most consonant with the intent and purpose of the statute *(see*William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 250.45 at 348-349).

For the same reasons, the court did not err in responding to a jury note by instructing the jury that “there is no requirement that you actually get a clear picture” of a person’s sexual or intimate parts to be guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber and Kern, JJ.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se eFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument.

1 Although filed as a civil rights complaint seeking damages, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court construed the complaint as a challenge to the duration of confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (no cause of action for damages under § 1983 unless prior successful challenge to 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 9 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES E. PATRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, vs. L.E. BRUCE, Ellsworth Correctional Facility and CHARLES SIMMONS, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. No. 97-3161 (D.C. No. 97-CV-3208) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , EBEL , and KELLY , Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Patrick, an inmate appearing pro se and in form a pauperis, appeals from the dismissal without prejudice of his habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 1 forconfinement); Preiser v. Rodgriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Although Mr.

Patrick takes issue with this conversion of his complaint, in light of his contentions on appeal, it is apparent that there is an injunctive component of the relief he seeks. Accordingly, the complaint is pro perly construed as a habeas petition at this point. - 2 - failure to exhaust state remedies. The district co urt also denied a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He contends that the Defe ndants are required to convert his indeterminate sentence to o ne under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines. A notice of appeal was filed along with his initial pleading, bringing into question our jurisdiction. While a timely filed mo tion for reconsideration was pending in the district court, however, Mr. Patrickfiled an amended notice of appeal and also filed a brief in this court. Thus, we have jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(C); Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (appellate brief may be the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal). The district court was correct in determining that Mr. Patrick must exhaust his state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). We DENY Mr. Patrick’s motion for issuance of a certificate of appealabili ty and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
#### Camille Williamson, Appellant, v Long Island University, Respondent.

[57 NYS3d 433]

In an action to recover dam*653ages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), entered July 19, 2016, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff was a student at the defendant, Long Island University, and resided at its on-campus housing facility in Brooklyn. During the evening of November 5, 2010, a glass globe fell from a ceiling lighting fixture in the plaintiff’s room onto her head. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries or have actual or constructive notice of it *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Patrick v Bally’s Total Fitness,*292 AD2d 433, 434 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Scola v Sun Intl. N. Am.,*279 AD2d 466, 467 [2001]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.P., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5744.

#### James Lee Forrest, Petitioner v. Second Judicial District Court of Nevada, Washoe County, et al.

562 U.S. 1066, 131 S. Ct. 642,

178 L. Ed. 2d 486,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9372.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.

Same case below, 126 Nev. 711.
# DLA associates run to fight cancer

/ Published Sept. 20, 2016
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
A group of current and former Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime associates completed a charity relay run crossing half of Ohio to raise funds for cancer research.

The run began at Genoa Park in downtown Columbus on the evening of Aug. 26 and continued throughout the night, finishing nearly 24-hours later at Friendship Park in Cincinnati.  

The team from DLA named “Are We There Yet?” was made up of current associates Mindy Cook, Kelly Cottongim, Kendall Cottongim, Army Col. Yee Hang, Todd Lewis, Megan Rodino, and Mindy Tisone, along with former associate Eric Rodino.

The rules of the run dictated that only one member of each eight-person team could run at any given time, and participants were required to cross a checkpoint before they could pass the “torch” to the next runner on their team.  

Director of Land Supplier Operations and team captain Hang said that despite poor weather conditions near the end of the route, the team was able to complete a total of 131 miles and raise nearly $4,000. 

“It was an honor to run this relay with such great people,” Hang said. “Although we didn't get much sleep, it was such a rewarding experience that we’re all looking forward to running again next year.”    

There were a total of 10 teams participating in this year’s C2C run and they collectively raised more than $58,000. That money will support programs and help finance research sponsored by the American Cancer Society. 

Team member Mindy Clark is the daughter of a cancer survivor. The Land and Maritime contracting officer says her motivation for running is to honor those affected by cancer and to help find a cure.

“I run for those I never had the chance to meet and the ones I lost too soon,” Clark said. 

“Together we’re motivated to honor and remember. Together, we can finish the fight against cancer.”
No. 10-7313.

#### In re James Thomas Wright, Jr., Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1059, 131 S. Ct. 683,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9401,

178 L. Ed. 2d 517,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 10-7226.

#### Daniel Aguilar-Moreno, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1076, 131 S. Ct. 678,

178 L. Ed. 2d 504,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9332.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 302.
No. 10-6898.

#### Raymond Salazar-Agundes, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1036, 131 S. Ct. 584,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8750.

178 L. Ed. 2d 426,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 640.
# C_2015026EN.01002801.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/28

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Ledra Advertising v Commission and ECB

(Case T-289/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment and compensation - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 026/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ledra Advertising Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ledra Advertising Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ledra Advertising Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.3 EAGLEPICHER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, As Amended I, Craig N. Kitchen, certify that: 1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of EaglePicher Technologies, LLC; 2.       Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report; 3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this annual report; 4.       The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting. 5.       The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. /s/ CRAIG N. KITCHEN
    
    Date: March 14, 2005Craig N. Kitchen, President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-358.

#### Allan R. Dunn, M.D., P.A., et al., Petitioners v. Eva G. Sziranyi.

562 U.S. 1029, 131 S. Ct. 573,

178 L. Ed. 2d 414,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8686.

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 884.
#### People v Washington

1st Dept: 146 AD3d 482 (Bronx)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)