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
 Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Phaseolus Genetic Stock Collectionheadline bar Main


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 Mark Tannenbaum, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered December 15, 1983, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that at the time of sentencing the court improperly denied his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty based upon his claims that he was innocent, that he was improperly represented by the Legal Aid Society and that he required a new attorney. The court indicated that defendant could withdraw his plea, if he were so disposed, but that he could not change counsel. Defendant declined this offer.

A defendant may not withdraw his guilty plea by proffering an unsupported claim of innocence where the plea was voluntarily made with the advice of competent counsel following an appraisal of all relevant factors *(People v Dixon,*29 NY2d 55). At the time of sentencing defendant freely admitted his possession of a controlled substance and acknowledged that he gave it to an undercover agent knowing that it was such a controlled substance. Further, defendant did not show good *678cause for the removal of assigned counsel *(see, People v Medina,*44 NY2d 199). The sentencing court properly exercised its discretion in refusing defendant’s request to appoint new counsel while giving defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea, which he declined. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 92 Filed: 08/27/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:227
Exhibit 32.1

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively, certify that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, which accompanies this certification, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                  
|----------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|November 12, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.                                       
|Date              |  |  |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and                            
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer                                          
|                  |  | 
|November 12, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                                              
|Date              |  |  |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Naisha J.V. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. John V., Appellant; Seaman’s Society for Children and Families, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 570]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle E Roberts, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2011, which, upon findings of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to his daughters Anahys C. and Naisha J.V, and committed custody of the children to the Seamen’s Society for Children and Families for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s determination that the father permanently neglected the children was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The agency presented ample evidence demonstrating the diligent efforts it made to strengthen the father’s relationship with the children by furnishing him with a service plan tailored to his individualized needs, and affording him referrals for treatment programs to address his particular obstacles *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *Matter of Eddie Christian S.,*44 AD3d 504 [2007], *lv denied 9*NY3d 818 [2008]). Even considering the period of the father’s incarceration, the agency’s diligent efforts were made to no avail *(see Matter of Gregory B.,*74 NY2d 77, 87 [1989]; Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f] [3]). Other than completing an anger management program, the father entirely failed to complete the service plan during the statutory period. Most troubling, however, is the father’s refusal to take responsibility for sexually abusing the children despite the Family Court’s finding, which finding this Court affirmed *(see Matter of Anahys V. [John V],*68 AD3d 485 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 705 [2010]), and despite knowing that it stood in the *417way of reunification with his children *(see Matter of Elijah Jose S. [Jose Angel S.],*79 AD3d 533 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 708 [2011]; *Matter of Perla B.,*48 AD3d 261 [2008]; *Matter of Ronald Jamel*W., 227 AD2d 169 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 803 [1996]). This supports Family Court’s determination that the father “substantially and continuously or repeatedly” failed to plan for the children’s future (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *see Matter of Jonathan R.,*30 AD3d 426 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 711 [2006]).

Further, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the children’s best interests are served by terminating the father’s parental rights and freeing them for adoption. At the time of the dispositional hearing, the children had been living with foster parents for over four years, and are getting along well in that kinship foster home. We decline to grant the father’s request for a suspended judgment because it is not warranted under the circumstances, which include his repeated incarcerations, the length of time the children have spent in the care of their kinship foster parents, who wish to adopt them, and considering the children’s need for permanence and stability *(see Matter of Jada Serenity H.,*60 AD3d 469 [2009]; *Matter of Jahisha Jaysawnna J.,*22 AD3d 383 [2005]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: June 15, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

JEREMEY MORGAN, * No. 19-1105V

* 

Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders

*

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Ruling on Entitlement; Conceded; 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Influenza (“flu”) Vaccine; Guillain-Barré

 * Syndrome (“GBS”)

 Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

David J. Carney, Green & Schafle, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Dhairya D. Jani, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On July 30, 2019, Jeremy Morgan (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”). Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1; 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to -34 (2012). Petitioner alleges that he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome 

(“GBS”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on November 2, 2018. Pet. at 1. 

On May 26, 2020, Respondent file a report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c) in which he 

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Resp’t’s Report at 5, ECF No. 

13. Specifically, Respondent wrote that it is his “position that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria 

set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation[]” for a flu-GBS 

claim. Id. (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(D), 100.3(c)(15)). 

 

1 This decision shall be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to 

the Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete 

medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the 

rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree 

that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from 

public access. 
2

A special master may determine whether a petitioner is entitled to compensation based 

upon the record. A hearing is not required. § 300aa-13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). In light of Respondent's 

concession and my review of the record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. This 

matter shall now proceed to the damages phase. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Herbrina D. Sanders

Herbrina D. Sanders

Special Master
#### Aaron FRENCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN; John Rowley; J. Loibel; Dan Watson, Lieutenant; Warner, Lieutenant; Whetstone, Officer; Spiker, Officer; Ryan, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-7756.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 12, 2011.

*846Aaron French, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Little French, a Maryland state prisoner, brought a civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) against prison staff. The district court dismissed the action, finding that French failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. French appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

A prisoner must properly exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 action concerning prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2006); *Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that exhaustion requires using every step available and complying with relevant procedural requirements). French contended in the district court that he could not complete the administrative review process because prison staff did not respond to his grievances. Maryland Division of Correction Directive 185-002 (“DCD 185-002”) provides, however, that a prisoner should treat a failure to respond within thirty days as a denial and file an appeal to the next level. Assuming, as French contended, that he received no response to his grievances, under DCD 185-002, and based on the dates of his initial grievance and the filing of the complaint in this action, he could not have completed the grievance process before he filed suit in the district court. Thus, the district court properly concluded that French failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment but modify the dismissal to be without prejudice to French’s right to refile once exhaustion is complete. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying French’s motion for reconsideration. *See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC,*599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir.2010) (providing standard for review of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion). 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 AS MODIFIED.*
Case: 1:02-cv-03055 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/17/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:21
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Torres, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Potoker, J.), rendered March 9, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*607Judgment affirmed.

The hearing court correctly concluded that there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest because the arresting officer testified that he was led to defendant by defendant’s accomplice, who had been arrested some months earlier *(see, People v Berzups,*49 NY2d 417, 427). Furthermore, the arresting officer testified that defendant matched the description given to him by the complaining witness on the day following the robbery *(see, People v Dodt,*61 NY2d 408, 415-416).

Defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People’s case was properly denied since the People presented ample evidence as to all counts in the indictment *(see,*CPL 290.10).

Finally, defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by not accepting a report of his accomplice’s arrest into evidence is without merit since defense counsel made no effort to lay a foundation or move for its introduction. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Raymond Jacobi, Respondent, v Elani Jacobi, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 360]

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the wife appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated March 31, 2011, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Friederwitzer, S.M.), dated September 10, 2010, awarding the husband $100 per week in spousal support.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County (Friederwitzer, S.M.), for the Support Magistrate to report on what items of documentary evidence were submitted at the hearing, and what documentary evidence she considered in fashioning her award, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Family Court, Queens County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 412, “[a] married person is chargeable with the support of his or her spouse and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be *892required to pay for his or her support a fair and reasonable sum, as the court may determine, having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties.” “This requires ‘a delicate balancing of each party’s needs and means’ ” *(Matter of Nisita v Nisita,*81 AD3d 832, 832 [2011], quoting *Matter of Shreffler v Shreffler,*283 AD2d 679, 680 [2001]). Here, we are unable to determine whether the Support Magistrate properly balanced each party’s needs and means in awarding the husband spousal support because it is unclear from both the hearing record and the Support Magistrate’s findings of fact what items of documentary evidence were actually submitted at the hearing which commenced in 2009, and what documentary evidence she considered in fashioning her award. Under these circumstances, in order to facilitate meaningful appellate review, we remit this matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for the Support Magistrate to provide this information, and hold the appeal in abeyance pending receipt of the Support Magistrate’s report. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.
# C_2019112EN.01004201.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/42

---

Action brought on 23 January 2019 — MSI Svetovanje v EUIPO — Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria (nume)

(Case T-41/19)

(2019/C 112/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MSI Svetovanje, marketing, d.o.o (Vrhnika, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative nume — Application for registration No 15 120 355

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 722/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to MSI Svetovanje d.o.o. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to MSI Svetovanje d.o.o.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                           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  on Form  10-Q of  Synovics
Pharmaceuticals,  Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended April 30,
2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ronald
Howard Lane, Principal Executive Officer, certify, 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; and

(2)      The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the
         Company for the periods presented.

Dated: June 18, 2007


By:  /s/ Ronald H. Lane
    -----------------------------
    Ronald Howard Lane
    Chief Executive Officer




This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Synovics  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.  and will be retained by Synovics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Lentz, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), rendered September 6, 1983, affirmed. No opinion.

The case is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Roger E. Nauheimer et al., Respondents, v Paul H. Desborough, Jr., et al., Appellants.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated at Special Term, Mastrella, J.—(Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mastrella, J.—declaratory judgment.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.