alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James McErlean, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 616]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered September 11, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, resisting arrest, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the County Court erred in denying his pro se motions for substitution of new assigned counsel, made on the eve of trial and at sentencing, without making *873sufficient inquiry to determine the validity of his motions. The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention, except to the extent that his claim implicates the voluntariness of his plea (see *People v Rolfe,*83 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2011]). To the extent that the defendant is arguing that the denial of his motions for substitution of counsel implicated the voluntariness of his plea, the record does not provide a basis to conclude that the defendant’s motions were based on specific factual allegations of serious complaints about his counsel *(see People v Porto,*16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [2010]; *People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; *People v Medina,*44 NY2d 199, 207 [1978]). Consequently, the court was not obligated to inquire further, and the motions were properly denied *(see People v Ward,*121 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2014]; *People v Brown,*117 AD3d 962 [2014]; *People v Woods,*110 AD3d 748 [2013]; *People v Stevenson,*36 AD3d 634, 635 [2007]).

The defendant contends that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment to file a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention, except to the extent that his motion to withdraw his plea related to the voluntariness of the plea *(see People v Elliott,*62 AD3d 1098, 1098-1099 [2009]). The decision to grant an adjournment is committed to the sound discretion of the court *(see People v Spears,*24 NY3d 1057, 1059 [2014]; *People v Singleton,*41 NY2d 402, 405 [1977]). To the extent that the defendant’s motion was based on a claim that his plea was involuntary, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the request for an adjournment to submit a motion, since the defendant failed to articulate any ground upon which the plea could be withdrawn *(see People v Spears,*24 NY3d at 1060; *People v Elliott,*62 AD3d at 1099; *People v Grimes,*53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008]; *People v Rodriguez,*299 AD2d 564, 565 [2002]; *People v Degree,*270 AD2d 847 [2000]).

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 Exhibit 10I (1)


                               DEXTER CORPORATION

             AMENDMENT OF THE 1994 STOCK PLAN FOR OUTSIDE DIRECTORS


1. This amendment to the 1994 Stock Plan for Outside Directors (the Plan) of
Dexter Corporation (the Company) is made pursuant to Article X of the Plan and
shall be effective as of February 26, 1999.


2. Section 5.01 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

         5.01. Amount of grants. Beginning with the Fiscal Year 1994 and
continuing for all Fiscal Years until the Plan expires pursuant to Section 8.02
or is earlier terminated pursuant to Article X, and subject to Section 5.02, a
grant of Directors Shares shall be made to each person who served as an Outside
Director during all or part of such Fiscal Year as follows:

                  (i) each person who has served as an Outside Director during
         the entire Fiscal Year shall be granted 300 Directors Shares; and

                  (ii) each person who has served as an Outside Director during
         only a portion of the Fiscal Year shall be granted the number of
         Directors Shares determined by multiplying 300 by the Pro Ration
         Fraction, provided, however, that any fractional shares resulting from
         such multiplication shall not be awarded, and the Outside Director
         shall instead be paid an amount in cash equal to such fractional amount
         times the Fair Market Value of one share of Common Stock determined as
         of the last day of the relevant Fiscal Year.

3. In all other respects, the Plan as hereby amended is ratified and confirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this amendment as of
February 26, 1999, such execution having been duly authorized by the Company's
Compensation & Organization Committee.

                                                DEXTER CORPORATION




                                                By:   /s/ Bruce H. Beatt
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Loudeye Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerold
J. Goade, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Vice President 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 to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Jerold J. Goade, Jr.

Jerold J. Goade, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
September 2, 2003

                                       -6-
No. 10-6971.

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

562 U.S. 1050, 131 S. Ct. 615,

178 L. Ed. 2d 447,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8979.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 302.
# C_2015016EN.01003601.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne)

(Case T-556/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community collective word mark Original Eau de Cologne - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2015/C 016/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller eV (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 August 2013 (Case R 2064/2012-14) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Original Eau de Cologne as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller eV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller eV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

---
No. 10-5318.

#### Edward L. Williams, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 276,

178 L. Ed. 2d 182,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7150.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 988 A.2d 509.
#### Suber v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

05/03/2016

660 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 126 A.3d 410
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          AND 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, Christopher G. Kenber, 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 fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2002 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.


                                        By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER G. KENBER
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Christopher G. Kenber
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer


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 fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2002
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.


                                        By: /s/ WILLIAM R. WALKER
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: William R. Walker
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer



                                       29
#### D.V.M.R., In re; G.R., In re

07/18/2016

386 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 144 A.3d 190
# C_2013325EN.01000902.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 22 July 2013 — FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden

(Case C-413/13)

2013/C 325/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media

Appellant:

Respondent: Staat der Nederlanden

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the competition rules of European Union law be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a collective labour agreement concluded between associations of employers and associations of employees, which provides that self-employed persons who, on the basis of a contract for professional services, perform the same work for an employer as the workers who come within the scope of that collective labour agreement must receive a specific minimum fee, falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU, specifically on the ground that that provision occurs in a collective labour agreement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the competition rules of European Union law be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a collective labour agreement concluded between associations of employers and associations of employees, which provides that self-employed persons who, on the basis of a contract for professional services, perform the same work for an employer as the workers who come within the scope of that collective labour agreement must receive a specific minimum fee, falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU, specifically on the ground that that provision occurs in a collective labour agreement?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does that provision then fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU in the case where that provision is (also) intended to improve the working conditions of the employees who come within the scope of the collective labour agreement, and is it also relevant in that regard whether those working conditions are thereby improved directly or only indirectly? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does that provision then fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU in the case where that provision is (also) intended to improve the working conditions of the employees who come within the scope of the collective labour agreement, and is it also relevant in that regard whether those working conditions are thereby improved directly or only indirectly?

---
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No. FAA - 2011 - 1188 Directorate ID: 2008 - SW - 46 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell) Model 204B, 205A, 205A - 1, 205B, and 212 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Ope rators): 15 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : Expand the applicability of four existing ADs to include PMA by identicality to prevent cracking/failure of certain yokes and loss of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 40,157 Labor per Helic opter ( 3 x $8 5 /work- hour for records review ) ( 35 x $ 8 5 /work- hour for inspection ) ( 32 x $8 5 /work- hour for replacement ) $ 255 (records review) $2,975 (inspection) $2,720 (replacement) Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 48,450 Total US Flee t Cost $ 643,155 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Michael Kohner
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Purusant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group:

    Agenda/Purpose: To review, discuss and evaluate grant 
applications.
    Committee Name: Subcommittee H-Clinical Trials.
    Date: July 28-29, 1998.
    Time: July 28-8:00 a.m. to recess; July 29-8:00 a.m. to 
adjournment.
    Place: Hyatt Regency--Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Deborah R. Jaffee, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6130 Executive 
Boulevard, North, Room 611C, Bethesda, MD 20892-7403, Telephone: 
301/496-7721.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control)

    Dated: June 19, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-17004 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
# C_2014372EN.01001602.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — DTM Ricambi v OHIM — STAR (STAR)

(Case T-199/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark STAR - Earlier international figurative mark STAR LODI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 372/21

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DTM Ricambi Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: V. Catelli and A. Loffredo, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Società trasporti automobilistici regionali SpA (STAR) (Lodi, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

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 First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2013 (Case R 0124/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Società trasporti automobilistici regionali SpA (STAR) and DTM Ricambi Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DTM Ricambi Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DTM Ricambi Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

1

---
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, Steven G. Larson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(i)           the Annual Report of LaserCard Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




(ii)          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of LaserCard Corporation.




Date:       June 15, 2010




/s/Steven G. Larson


Steven G. Larson


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
No. 09-9625.

#### Paul Ajetunmobi, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 949, 131 S. Ct. 70,

178 L. Ed. 2d 246,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7808.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 353 Fed. Appx. 628.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2614 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar limitation 

on employer-provided group term life insurance that can be excluded 

from the gross income of the employee. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2019 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the dollar limitation on employer-provided group term 

life insurance that can be excluded from the gross income 

of the employee. 

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 ‘‘Group Term Life In5 surance Increase Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2614 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON EXCLUSION FOR EM2 PLOYER-PROVIDED GROUP TERM LIFE IN3 SURANCE PURCHASED FOR EMPLOYEES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 79(a) of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘$50,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$375,000’’. 

7 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 79 of such 

8 Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 

9 subsection: 

10 ‘‘(g) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any taxable 

12 year beginning after 2019, the $375,000 amount 

13 under subsection (a)(1) shall be increased by an 

14 amount equal to— 

15 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

16 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter17 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

18 year in which the taxable year begins, deter19 mined by substituting ‘2018’ for ‘2016’ in sub20 paragraph (A)(ii) thereof. 

21 ‘‘(2) ROUNDING.—If any amount as adjusted 

22 under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $10,000, 

23 such amount shall be rounded to the nearest mul24 tiple of $10,000.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2614 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2018. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 10-5500.

#### Georgi Eremeyev, Petitioner v. New York, et al.

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

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7461.

178 L. Ed. 2d 201,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
#### Pedro Serrano et al., Respondents, v TED General Contractor, Appellant, and Eighth Avenue Sky, LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[67 NYS3d 620]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered November 17, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants Eighth Avenue Sky’s (EAS) and TED General Contractor’s (TED) Labor Law 240 (1) liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. Cross appeal by TED from so much of the order as made certain findings as to it, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Plaintiff Pedro Serrano was injured when, during the course of moving sheetrock into a building, he stood on top of a sidewalk shed that broke beneath him, causing him to fall to the sidewalk below. While the motion court correctly determined that these facts demonstrated plaintiffs’ prima facie entitlement to summary judgment *(see e.g. Tzic v Kasampas,*93 AD3d 438, 438-439 [1st Dept 2012]), it erred in finding that EAS raised a triable issue of fact. That no witness other than plaintiff testified as to the occurrence of the accident does not bar judgment in his favor, “where nothing in the record contradicts his version of the [occurrence] or raises an issue as to his credibility” *(Ortiz v Burke Ave. Realty, Inc.,*126 AD3d 577, 578 [1st Dept 2015]), and defendant EAS’s expert report was purely speculative in that it was not based on an examination of the sidewalk shed at the time of the accident *(Pastabar Café Corp. v 343 E. 8th St. Assoc., LLC,*147 AD3d 583, 585 [1st Dept 2017]).

*475The motion court properly found that TED was the general contractor of the project given that the evidence clearly demonstrated that it had authority to control the work *(DeMaria v RBNB 20 Owner, LLC,*129 AD3d 623, 624-625 [1st Dept 2015]), and that plaintiff was found to be a worker protected under the statute because he was making deliveries of construction materials to the worksite during an ongoing construction project *(Serowik v Leardon Boiler Works Inc.,*129 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2015]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Kapnick, Webber and Oing, JJ.