alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Crop Germplasm Research: College Station, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area College Station, Texas Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center Crop Germplasm Research





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar  To go to the News & Events page for the Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center **Click Here**   ARS News Articles  ARS to Release Early-Maturing PecanJul 21, 2009Soil Scientist Wins Top Honor from USDA Research AgencyFeb 12, 2008New High-Yielding Pecan Is Right for Many RegionsOct 24, 2007Sources of Sorghum Anthracnose Resistance DiscoveredFeb 03, 2006


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs Historical Perspectives







Riner's Dairy Cow - 1950sheadline bar Riners' dairy cowGlendon Riner (L), and his father, Lud Riner, pose with a milk cow on Riner's Dairy in Fayette Co., WV during the mid 1950's.Sarah Coffey Historical Perspectives Photo Index AFSRC Home


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joanne Mattison, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 528]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered July 6, 2010, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

In December 2009, defendant was indicted and charged with murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in connection with the stabbing death of the victim. Counsel served notice of intent to proffer psychiatric evidence and, at the People’s request, County Court ordered a CPL article 730 examination. After interviewing defendant, the evaluating psychiatrist concluded that while defendant was mentally ill, she “was not suffering from a mental disease or defect that caused her to lack substantial capacity to know or appreciate either the nature and consequences of her conduct or that her conduct was wrong.” Shortly thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and, in conjunction therewith, executed a written waiver of the right to appeal. Following a presentencing hearing, defendant was sentenced to 22 years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

*1158We affirm. Defendant’s assertion that she was not competent to enter a guilty plea, as well as her related claim that County Court erred in accepting her plea without conducting a competency hearing, impact the voluntariness of her plea and, hence, survive her unchallenged oral and written waivers of the right to appeal; however, these issues are unpreserved for our review in light of defendant’s failure to move to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v McFarren,*83 AD3d 1209, 1209 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 860 [2011]; *People v Budwick,*82 AD3d 1447, 1448 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 857 [2011]; *People v Stoddard,*67 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 806 [2010]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered here, as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that were inconsistent with her guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of her plea *(see People v Rought,*90 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2011]; *People v McFarren,*83 AD3d at 1209; *People v Coons,*73 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 803 [2010]). Finally, defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal precludes her current challenge to County Court’s suppression rulings *(see People v Moreno,*86 AD3d 863, 864 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 954 [2011]; *People v White,*75 AD3d 837, 838 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 925 [2010]), as well as her assertion that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive *(see People v Taylor,*89 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2011]; *People v Richardson,*83 AD3d 1290, 1292 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 821 [2011]). Defendant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Peters, J.P, Rose, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.2

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Michael V. Valenza, the Senior Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of Radnor Holdings Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

         The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended June 28,
         2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated:  August 9, 2002                    /s/ Michael V. Valenza
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Michael V. Valenza
                                          Senior Vice President-Finance and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF

FINANCIAL OFFICER



Statement



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.§1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Sonic Foundry, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |        |  |                          
|--------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------
|Dated: April 29, 2005 |  |        |  |                          
|                      |  |       
|                      |  | By:    |  | /s/ Rimas P. Buineivicius
|                      |  | By:    |  | Rimas P. Buineivicius    
|                      |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer  
|                      |  |       
|                      |  | By:    |  | /s/ Kenneth A. Minor     
|                      |  | By:    |  | Kenneth A. Minor         
|                      |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer  



20
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James Hennen, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                          | 
| | ------------------------ | 
| | /s/ James
 Hennen       
| | James Hennen            
| | Chief
 Financial Officer
| | April 16,
 2009         

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK LAWSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-145-S, CR-89-362-PN)

Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Lawson, Nos. CA-96-145-S;

CR-89-362-PN (D. Md. May 3, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

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

AFFIRMED
# C_2008112EN.01001101.xml

| 7.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4979 — ACER/Packard Bell)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 112/06)

On 27 February 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4979. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4979. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### SAMMARITANO, Respondent, v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Vincenzo Sammaritano against the Interurban Street Railway Company. B. H. Ames, for appellant. C. O. Maas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

LAUGHLIN and LAMBERT, JJ„ dissent.
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3962

___________ Darlene Louise Rooney, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Federal Communications Commission, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 6, 1998 Filed: May 11, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Darlene Louise Rooney appeals the district court & s order dismissing he r 1 complaint without prejudice. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm th e judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 613 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 613

 To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to permit a 
prevailing party in an action or proceeding brought to enforce the Act 
     to be awarded expert witness fees and certain other expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 2011

Mr. Harkin (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Sanders) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to permit a 
prevailing party in an action or proceeding brought to enforce the Act 
     to be awarded expert witness fees and certain other expenses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``IDEA Fairness Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF EXPERT WITNESS FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES AS 
              ATTORNEYS' FEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 615(i)(3) of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(3)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
                    ``(H) Inclusion of expert witness fees and other 
                expenses as attorneys' fees.--In this paragraph, the 
                term `attorneys' fees' shall include the fees of expert 
                witnesses, including the reasonable costs of any test 
                or evaluation necessary for the preparation of the 
                parent or guardian's case in the action or 
                proceeding.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any action or proceeding brought under section 615 of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) that has 
not been finally adjudicated as of the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 8.1

|Entity                         | Jurisdiction of Incorporation | Names Under Which the Entities
Conduct Business
|------------------------------ | ----------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|N.V. Alcon Coordination Center |                               | Belgium                                        
|Alcon Credit Corporation       |                               | Canton of Zug, Switzerland                     
|Alcon Holdings Inc.            |                               | State of Delaware, U.S.A.                      
|Alcon Laboratories, Inc.       |                               | State of Delaware, U.S.A.                      
|Alcon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.    |                               | State of Delaware, U.S.A.                      
|Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd.     |                               | Canton of Zug, Switzerland                     
|Alcon RefractiveHorizons, Inc. |                               | State of Delaware, U.S.A.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00026-TLS-SLC

)

PATRICK DAVIS also known as )

Patrick A. Davis )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, CHIEF JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge

Susan Collins, on June 21, 2017, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for Defendant,

and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on the

record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and of

counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not guilty,

to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and his
right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant be

adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have sentence

imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and Recommendation

be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled before Chief Judge

Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings and

Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 21st day of June 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2