alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Veraso Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Connor, John, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Sharon A. Brennan of couunsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered March 9, 2016. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs).</p><p>Plaintiff correctly argues that defendant's cross motion failed to establish that defendant had timely denied plaintiff's claim after plaintiff's assignor had allegedly failed to appear at both an initial and a follow-up EUO. As defendant did not demonstrate that it is not precluded from raising its proffered defense (<a href="../2009/2009_02589.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co.</i>, 60 AD3d 1045</a> [2009]), defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied.</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's further contention, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>entitlement to summary judgment, as it failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (<a href="../2015/2015_04787.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.</i>, 25 NY3d 498</a> [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim form that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (<a href="../2010/2010_08933.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, 78 AD3d 1168</a> [2010]; <a href="../2011/2011_51292.htm" target="_blank"><i>Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co.</i>, 32 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 23, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Carter TILLERY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9623.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.42

     SUMMARY OF AN ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CIMA LABS INC. AND JAMES C. HAWLEY

In July 2003, CIMA LABS INC. orally agreed with Mr. Hawley (and, under CIMA's
merger agreement with Cephalon, Inc., Cephalon will honor and observe this
arrangement) that, following the completion of the merger with Cephalon, CIMA
will not terminate Mr. Hawley's employment for a period of 6 months, except for
"cause" as defined in Mr. Hawley's employment agreement. After the 6-month
period, if CIMA terminates Mr. Hawley's employment for any reason other than for
"cause," Mr. Hawley will be entitled to the severance benefits provided in his
employment agreement. Additionally, if, at the time of Mr. Hawley's termination,
CIMA or Cephalon provides severance benefits to any of its employees that are
more beneficial than the severance benefits provided to Mr. Hawley under his
employment agreement (taking into account the position of the employees as
compared to Mr. Hawley's position), then he will be entitled to receive the
severance benefits provided to such other employees, equitably adjusted to
reflect Mr. Hawley's position with CIMA.
Derrick MOORE, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 12-9759.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

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

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

EUGENE FORREST, III

NO. 2021 KW 1307

DECEMBER 30, 2021

In Re: Eugene Forrest, III, applying for supervisory writs, 

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, 

No. 3934- F- 2019. 

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., PENZATO AND HESTER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

VGW

AHP

CHH

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

r

DEL'TfLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTIAN M. GERMANI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAFEWAY GROCERY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00742-JD 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

DISMISSING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 7

The Court has reviewed Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero’s report and 

recommendation. Dkt. No. 7. No objections have been filed in response to the report, and the 

time to file objections has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Plaintiffs have now twice been advised that they have not adequately demonstrated 

indigence in this case, see Dkt. Nos. 5, 7, and yet they have still failed to either file a sufficient 

application to proceed in forma pauperis signed by Collier or to pay the filing fee. The Court

agrees with Magistrate Judge Spero’s recommendation that in this circumstance, the case should 

be dismissed. Dkt. No. 7.

The Court consequently adopts in full Magistrate Judge Spero’s report and 

recommendation, and orders the case dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2017

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTIAN M. GERMANI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAFEWAY GROCERY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00742-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 13, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Donald T. Collier

1639 Lemon Street

Vallejo, CA 94590 

Kristian M. Germani

270 Monarch Court, C

Santa Rosa, CA 95401 

Dated: April 13, 2017

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SUE KELLER )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 3:12-CV-840-TLS

)

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING )

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW )

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER, )

AMERIDOSE, LLC., ALAUNUS )

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC., BARRY )

CADDEN, LISA CADDEN, and )

GREGORY CONIGLIARO )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s, New England Compounding

Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a New England Compounding Center’s (“NECC”), Notice of Stay by Reason

of Bankruptcy [ECF No. 8] filed on December 27, 2012. The NECC filed a voluntary petition

under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts (Eastern Division) No. 12-19882-HJB. 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a):

a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title . . . operates as a stay,

applicable to all entities, of the comme ncement or continuation, including the

issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or

proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been com menced before the

commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor

that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.

The Court finds that the Notice [ECF No. 8] is made in good faith and ORDERS this

cause of action STAYED against NECC. The Defendant, NECC, is directed to notify the Court

by Notice upon resolution of the bankruptcy matter.

case 3:12-cv-00840-TLS-CAN document 16 filed 01/31/13 page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED on January 31, 2013.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

case 3:12-cv-00840-TLS-CAN document 16 filed 01/31/13 page 2 of 2
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Brad Nichol    |                                                  |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:              | Brad Nichol                                           |   |
| Title:   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
| Date:         | September 1, 2011                                     |   |

| /s/ Nathan Steinke |                                                                                     |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:              | Nathan Steinke                                                                           |   |
| Title:   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer) |   |
| Date:         | September 1, 2011                                                                        |   |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

___________________

www.cand.uscourts.gov

Susan Y. Soong General Court Number

Clerk of Court 415-522-2000

January 26, 2018

RE: Harris v. Cooper

1:17-cv-00871-RMI

Default is declined. There is no proof of service of the summons and complaint. 

Susan Y. Soong, Clerk

_________________________

by: Mark Romyn

Case Systems Administrator

415-522-2009
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 1995)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 20778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10395]



[[Page 20778]]

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems; 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical 
and Communications Systems (#1196).
    Date and Time: May 19, 1995: 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Place: Room 320, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1340.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate enter specific area of review 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 24, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-10395 Filed 4-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 10(p)


 


[As approved by the Audit Committee on
February 8, 2003]


 


ALBANY INTERNATIONAL CORP.


 


Code of Ethics


for the Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Controller


 


I hereby certify that I will
adhere to the following principles and responsibilities in the performance of
my duties as an officer of Albany International Corp.:


 


•                                            Act with
honesty and integrity, avoiding conflicts of interest involving personal and
professional relationships;


 


•                                            Provide other
officials and constituents of the Company information that is full, fair,
accurate, complete, objective, timely and understandable;


 


•                                            Comply with
rules and regulations of all governmental authorities as well as other private
or public regulatory agencies to which the Company is subject;


 


•                                            Act in good
faith, responsibly and objectively, with due care, competence and diligence,
without any misrepresentation of material facts and without  allowing my independent judgment to be
subordinated;


 


•                                            Respect the
confidentiality of information acquired in the course of my work, except when
authorized or legally obligated to disclose such information, and refrain from
the use of such confidential information for personal advantage;


 


•                                            Share my
knowledge with others and maintain skills important and relevant to the needs
of my constituents;


 


•                                            Promote ethical
behavior among other employees of the Company;


 


•                                            Achieve
responsible use of, and control over, all assets and resources employed or
entrusted to me; and


 


•                                            Promptly report
to the Chairman of the Audit Committee any violations of this Code of which I
have knowledge.
Recommendation for the 2023-2024 Formula of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) periodically

convenes in open session to discuss and make recommendations on the selection of strain(s) to 

be included in updated COVID-19 vaccines. At the January 26, 2023, VRBPAC meeting on 

COVID-19 vaccines, FDA stated that they anticipate assessing SARS-CoV-2 evolution at least

annually (review of data to commence in the Spring of each year) and to convene the VRBPAC 

in June of each year regarding strain selection for a fall vaccination.

Data on SARS-CoV-2 evolution indicated that XBB sublineages accounted for more than 95% 

of the circulating virus variants in the U.S. as of early June 2023. While XBB.1.5 has declined to

less than 40% of presumed circulating virus in the U.S., XBB.1.16 is on the rise and XBB.2.3 is 

slowly increasing in proportion (CDC COVID Data Tracker: Variant Proportions). The current 

trajectory of virus evolution suggests that XBB.1.16 could be dominant by fall 2023. XBB.2.3 

and other XBB sublineages could also continue to increase in proportion as the virus evolves. 

Although SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, the protein sequences of XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, and 

XBB.2.3 Spike protein appear similar, with few amino acid differences. Available evidence 

suggests little to no further immune evasion from these new substitutions in the XBB.1.16 Spike 

protein compared to XBB.1.5. By several measures, including escape from antibody 

neutralization and waning protection, the currently available bivalent COVID-19 (Original plus 

Omicron BA.4/BA.5) vaccines appear less effective against currently circulating variants (e.g., 

XBB-lineage viruses) than against previous strains of virus. The totality of available evidence 

suggests that a monovalent XBB-lineage vaccine is warranted for the 2023–2024 update. 

The VRBPAC met on June 15, 2023, to discuss the strain composition for the 2023-2024 

Formula of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. Sublineages considered by the VRBPAC included 

XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, and XBB.2.3. Evidence influencing strain selection discussed by the 

Committee included virus surveillance and genomic analyses, antigenic characterization of 

viruses, human serology studies from current vaccines, pre-clinical immunogenicity studies 

evaluating immune responses generated by candidate vaccines. The Committee also reviewed

manufacturing timelines.

For the 2023-2024 Formula of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S., the committee unanimously 

voted (21/0) on recommending a 2023-2024 Formula update of the current vaccine composition 

to a monovalent XBB-lineage. Based on the evidence and other considerations presented, there 

was a preference for selection of XBB.1.5. 

Based on the totality of the evidence, for the 2023-2024 Formula of COVID-19 vaccines in the 

U.S., FDA has advised manufacturers seeking to update their COVID-19 vaccines that they 

should develop vaccines with a monovalent XBB.1.5 composition.
Juan Manuel CRUZADO-LAUREANO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-6828.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1156]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-1, RM-8527]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Hamilton, Montana

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by 
Benedict Communicatins, Inc. proposing the allotment of Channel 251C3 
to Hamilton, Montana, as that community's second FM broadcast service. 
The coordinates for Channel 251C3 are 46-14-36 and 114-09-30. Canadian 
concurrence will be requested for this allotment.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 6, 1995, and reply 
comments on or before March 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: James R. Bayes, Jerry V. 
Haines, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 
20006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 634-6530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-1, adopted January 4, 1995, 
and released January 12, 1995. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, 
NW, Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, 
D.C. 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contact.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-1156 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Case 4:11-cr-03654-DCB-DTF Document 1 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 1

USDC IN/ND case 3:13-cr-00047-RLM-CAN document 4-1 filed 05/06/13 page 1 of 1
제 �형�당뇨병이란�무엇입니까?

제 �형 당뇨병은 몸 안에서 인슐린이 잘 만들어지지 않아 혈당이 높아질 때 

발생합니다.

보건평등에�관한�더�많은�정보를�얻기�위해서는 www.fda.gov/healthequity를�방문하십시오

정상 혈압 균형 잡힌 식단 체중 조절 활동적인

l생활

제 �형 당뇨병의 위험을 낮추십시요

피곤함

증가

흐릿한

시야

갈증 및 소변 

횟수 증가

배로픔

증가

낫지 않는 

상처

설명할 수 

없는 체중

감소 

증상은 보통 가볍고 느리게 나타날 수 

있습니다. 증상이 없는 사람들도 많습니다. 

제 �형 당뇨병은 보통 중년 및 노인에게서 

나타나지만 어느 나이에서나 나타날 수있습니다.

알고

있었습니까 ?

성인 약 ��명�중 

� 명이�재 � 형 

당뇨병을�앓고 

있습니다

금연
당뇨병과�노인

제 �형 당뇨병은 몸 안에서 인슐린이 잘 만들어지지 않아 혈당이 높아질 때 

발생합니다. 

보건평등에�관한�더�많은�정보를�얻기�위해서는 www.fda.gov/healthequity를�방문하십시오

건강한 식단

금연 혈당 조절

활발한 신체 혈압 조절

활동

처방 받은대로 약

복용 

당뇨병을 앓고 있다면 다음을 실행하여 신장

건강을 지키십시오: 

당뇨병은 �� 세 

이상의�사람 � 명

중 � 명에게 

영향을�미칩니다.

노인들에게 당뇨병 관련 

말기 신장병이 가장 높은 

비율로 나타납니다. 이것은 

신장이 제대로 작동하지 

않아 투석 (몸에서 노폐물 

및 초과 수분을 제거)을 

해야 하거나 신장 이식을 

해야할 때 발생합니다. 

94 ãÖ

Çi
正确冷却食物,防止生病,保住自己的工作

维护众人健康。正确冷藏食物。

食物传播爆发的原因

抱歉,

我们关门歇业了
#### ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC., Manhattan Design Studio, Inc., Contour Optik, Inc., and Asahi Optical Co., Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MIRACLE OPTICS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., Manhattan Design Studio, Inc., Contour Optik, Inc., and Asahi Optical Co., Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Miracle Optics, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 04-1138, 04-1182.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: April 20, 2004.

Michael A. Nicodema, Principal Attorney, Barry J. Schindler, of Counsel, Green-berg Traurig, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

*708Jeffrey A. Schwab, Principal Attorney, Michael Aschen, of Counsel, Abelman, Frayne, New York, NY, David B. Abel, Mark N. Hurvitz, of Counsel, Squire, Sanders, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Cross Appellant.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Miracle Optics, Inc. responds to this court’s March 10, 2004 order regarding its cross-appeal and moves for an extension of time, until June 4, 2004, to file its brief in 04-1138.

In response to this court’s order regarding its cross-appeal, Miracle Optics moves to withdraw its cross-appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Miracle Optics’ cross-appeal, 04-1182, is dismissed. Each side shall bear its own costs with regard to 04-1182.

(2) Miracle Optics’ motion for an extension of time is granted.