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
 Wheat Health, Genetics, and Quality Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Wheat Research including: Root Disease, Stem Rust Stripe Rust, Genotyping Wheat Quality, Fusarium Blight Phenomics, Wheat Genetics Soft Durum Wheat
 Historical Information Orville Vogel, 1977 Semidwarf Wheat Research
 Soft Svevo Wheat


Mission


People Bellinger, Brian Chen, Xianming Evans, Kent Freston-Lenssen, Mishelle Garland-Campbell, Kimberly Hall, Dorothy Kelley, William
                                            *- Bill* Kiszonas, Alecia Li, Xianran Luna, Janet Marlowe, Karol Paulitz, Timothy Peden, Gail Ruff, Travis See, Deven Steber, Camille Thomashow, Linda Thompson, Alison Weller, David


Pacific West Area   kim.garland-campbell@ars.usda.gov


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
# C_2019263EN.01005002.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/50

---

Action brought on 6 June 2019 — UE v Commission

(Case T-338/19)

(2019/C 263/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, avocats)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision dated 1 August 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request to recognise an occupational disease; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision dated 1 August 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request to recognise an occupational disease;

| — | if needed, annul the Commission decision dated 5 March 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 5 November 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

if needed, annul the Commission decision dated 5 March 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 5 November 2018;

| — | order the reimbursement of the applicant’s incurred costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the reimbursement of the applicant’s incurred costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of interpretation of the reasonableness of the period of time in which the occupational disease request has been lodged. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of interpretation of the reasonableness of the period of time in which the occupational disease request has been lodged.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the misuse of power.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the breach of the rights of defence and of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the breach of the rights of defence and of the duty to state reasons.

---
Order entered November 26, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00588-CR

JAYONA E. JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-75712-S

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 20, 2018 motion to extend the time to file 

appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before

THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### Rolanda Morgan-Word et al., Respondents, v New York City Department of Education et al., Appellants.

[946 NYS2d 888]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated December 6, 2010, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Rolanda Morgan-Word (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly was injured in January 2008 while attempting to break up a fight between two students at a school where she was an assistant principal. The defendants, New York City Department of Education and New York City Board of Education, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. *1026The Supreme Court denied the motion and the defendants appeal. We affirm.

A municipality “is immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of its governmental functions unless the injured person establishes a special relationship with the municipality which would create a special duty of protection with respect to that individual” *(Gotlin v City of New York,*90 AD3d 605, 607 [2011]). A special relationship may be formed when a municipality voluntarily assumes a special duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty *(id.).*To establish a special duty based on voluntary assumption, a plaintiff must show: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured, (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm, (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party, and (4) the injured party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” *(Brown v City of New York,*73 AD3d 1113, 1114 [2010]; *see Cuffy v City of New York,*69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]; *Bain v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*268 AD2d 451 [2000]).

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they assumed a special duty to the injured plaintiff. Since the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christian Estevez, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 637] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered May 10, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was *1233legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court deprived him of a fair trial and his right to present a defense by precluding defense counsel from introducing his prior videotaped statement into evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, since the specific arguments made by the defendant on appeal were not made by defense counsel in the Supreme Court *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Lopez,*82 AD3d 1264 [2011]) and, in any event, is without merit *(see People v Williams,*217 AD2d 713 [1995]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

BEVERLY FERRARO,

Respondent

v.

PATTERSON

- ERIE CORPORATION D/B/A

BURGER KING AND BURGER KING CORPORATION,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 170 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of January, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether the Superior Court’s conclusion that [Respondent] was excused from compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure to serve [Petitioner] timely and via the Sheriff before the statute of limitations expired was in

conflict with this Honorable Court’s holdings on the same legal question and other holdings of the intermediate appellate courts?
#### Patricia J. Curto, Appellant, v New York State Thruway Authority et al., Respondents.

(Claim No. 116804-A.)

(Appeal No. 1.)

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
#### Rene QUINTANILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathy MENDOZA-POWERS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-15988.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 8, 2011.

Marc Grossman, Law Offices of Marc E. Grossman, Upland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

*273Robert C. Cross, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Rene Quintanil-la appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Quintanilla contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’ 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en bane). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Quintan-illa raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

We deny as moot Quintanilla’s motion to lift the stay.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The State v. Kennet, *Appellant.*

Criminal Law: burglary : evidence. The evidence in this case examined and *held*to be sufficient to sustain a conviction of the charge of burglary

*Appeal from Dade Oireuit Court.*— Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge.

Affirmed,

*161*McOluer & Bowling*for appellant.

The facts proven are not sufficient to show that a burglary was committed. *State v.*Kennedy, 16 Mo. App. 287 ; *State v.*Kennedy, 88 Mo. 341; *Bex v. Smith,*Ryan & Moody’s Crown Cases, Reserved H. L. 187, 1828; Russell on Crimes [5 Ed.] 786, 787. The indictment specially charges that the burglary was committed by raising the window; any other breaking will not support a verdict under this indictment.

*John M. Wood,*Attorney General, for tne estate.

The evidence' of the witnesses stands uncontradicted, and establishes both the burglary and the larceny beyond question, and the verdict and judgment should be sustained.

Brace, J.

The defendant was indicted in the Dade circuit court for burglary and. larceny, was found guilty of both offenses and sentenced to the penitentiary for three years for the burglary, and for two years for the larceny.

The testimony in the case consists of the evidence of Frank Oarlock and his wife, by which it appears that between eight and nine o’clock on the night of the sixth of .Tune, 1888, after closing all the doors and windows of their dwelling house, except perhaps one between their bedroom and the . diningroom, they retired ; about two o’clock they were awakened, and, by the light of a lamp which was on the sideboard, they discovered the defendant in their bedroom, approaching their bed; Carlock spoke to him and asked him what he wanted there, and without making any reply he sprang forward, jerked Oarlock’s pants from under his head and retreated, taking them with him. He ran through the diningroom, jumped out of the dining-room window, which was then open, and disappeared.

*162On examination of this record we find no error in the indictment and none committed on the trial. The defendant by his counsel does not urge any here as to the conviction for larceny, but asks for a reversal of the sentence for burglary, insisting that there was not evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict as to that offense, *i. e.,*that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the defendant raised the window for his entrance, through which he escaped. There is not a particle of evidence tending to show an entrance in any other way than through that window; the other windows and doors were found closed as they were left. There is not a particle of evidence tending to show that the window was raised by any one else; it was closed when the family retired. That he raised it and entered through it for the felonious purpose which he immediately perpetrated is as certain as the fact established by positive evidence that immediately upon his discovery he made his escape through it. No rational mind with an ordinary knowledge of human nature could reach any other conclusion. There is nothing in this appeal, and the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
#### In the Matter of Stephen J. De Rosa, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner.

[945 NYS2d 920]

Order of suspension entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.23 (b). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni and Sconiers, JJ. (Filed May 22, 2012.)
Document

Exhibit 10.1

Bottomline 
 325 Corporate Drive 
Portsmouth, NH 03801 




SPECIAL ADVISOR AND TRANSITION AGREEMENT




John Kelly
80 Old Post Road
Unit #7
New Rochelle, NY 10801


Dear John:


As discussed, we understand your desire to retire from Bottomline Technologies, Inc. (“Bottomline”) on August 24, 2021. We thank you for your commitment and service to Bottomline over the past decade. The transition of responsibilities, knowledge and relationships you have built during your tenure at Bottomline are critically important.  This letter is intended to memorialize your willingness and agreement to assist in that transition. 


To best support a smooth transition, you have agreed to serve as a Special Advisor to Bottomline for twelve months beginning August 24, 2021 and continuing through August 24, 2022, providing such support as may be reasonably necessary or required, including making yourself available to answer questions, providing historical information, or advising the business on matters that were within the scope of your responsibilities during your employment with Bottomline.


You will not receive any salary or bonus for the term of this engagement however your prior stock awards will continue to vest according to their existing terms through August 24, 2022 as consideration and compensation for your continued availability to Bottomline and service as a Special Advisor.  You will also be eligible to participate in our group health insurance coverage through COBRA for up to an 18-month period should you choose to do so.


Please acknowledge your agreement and acceptance of the terms hereof by executing this letter below.															
					
				Sincerely,	
					
				/s/ Jennifer Gray	
	Acknowledged and Agreed:			Chair, Leadership Development and Compensation Committee	
					
	/s/ John Kelly			/s/ Steph Lucey	
	Name: John Kelly			Steph Lucey	
	Date:  July 22, 2021			Chief People Officer
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 annual report of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



/s/
Joseph R. Tomkinson
Joseph R. Tomkinson
Chief Executive Officer
March 14, 2007

/s/
Gretchen D. Verdugo
Gretchen D. Verdugo
Chief Financial Officer
March 14, 2007

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 will be provided to Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph E. Gertzberg, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 380]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schoharie County (Bartlett, III, J.), rendered January 5, 2011, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Following defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated, he was sentenced to five years of probation. Thereafter, three violation of probation petitions were filed against defendant. In July 2010, among other things, he was sentenced in Otsego County Court to a prison term of 1 to 3 years upon his conviction of the crime of felony driving while intoxicated. Subsequently, defendant pleaded guilty to violating terms of his probation and waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. Defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to lVs to 4 years, said sentence to run consecutively to the Otsego County conviction. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive. Nonetheless, he is precluded from raising this claim by reason of his knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Jones,*83 AD3d 1289, 1290 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 860 [2011]; *People v Joseph,*69 AD3d 1056, 1056-1057 [2010]).

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen, Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Caremark Rx, Inc. (the Corporation) for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation, certifies 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 Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 26, 2007



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Peter J. Clemens IV                          
|Peter J. Clemens IV                                 
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

CERETECHS, Ltd. ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. W91B4M-10-D-4008 ) 

W91B4M-I0-D-4015 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60406 

Gerald H. Werfel, Esq. 

Ian A. Cronogue, Esq. 

Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP 

McLean, VA 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Wayne T. Branom III, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's 

docket with prejudice. 

Dated: September 5, 2018 

DA YID D' ALESSANDRIS 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60406, Appeal of CERETECHS, 

Ltd., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

FRANKLYN A. SANCHEZ

- ARROYO ,

Appellant , Case No. 5D2 2 -1457 LT Case No. 2021-101016-CFDL v. STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. ________________________________/ Decision filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from th e Circui t Court for Volu sia County, James R. Cla yton, Judge. Mathew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.
EISNAUGLE , JAY and KILBANE , JJ., concur.