alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

David E. Hershberg, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Globecomm Systems Inc., and Andrew C. Melfi, Chief FinancialOfficer of Globecomm Systems Inc., each hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of GlobecommSystems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the six months ended December 31, 2004(the "Quarterly Report") fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in theQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Globecomm SystemsInc.

|                        |  |        |  |                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|------------------------|--|--------|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| Date:February 14, 2005 |  | By:    |  | /s/ DAVID E.HERSHBERG                                              |
|                   |  |   |  | DavidE. HershbergChairman of the Board andChief ExecutiveOfficer   |
|                   |  | By:    |  | /s/ANDREW C. MELFI                                                 |
|                   |  |   |  | Andrew C.MelfiVice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer |
|                        |

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to GlobecommSystems Inc. and will be retained by Globecomm Systems Inc. andfurnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

DANIEL GLENN ROADRUCK,

Appellant.

No. 70703-5-

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: SEp - 2 2014

Per Curiam. Daniel Roadruck appeals the judgment and sentence entered on

his convictions for two counts of second degree burglary and one count of second

degree criminal trespass. He argues, and the State concedes, that the judgment and

sentence contains a clerical error. We accept the concession of error and remand

solely to amend the judgment and sentenceto state thatRoadruck was convicted of

counts 3, 4, and 5 and that counts 1 and 2 were dismissed.

Remanded.

For the court:

^TV\ote0 vf J

rO -T; -~

C=> —; r-

-a •??.'•-,-.

i 'J- "^ -.'• ~2P* —r,r:'i
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      12,847,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,454,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,226,000
<PP&E>                                       1,074,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 182,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,155,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,942,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,000
<COMMON>                                        49,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,095,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,155,000
<SALES>                                      1,909,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,909,000
<CGS>                                        1,454,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,317,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,568,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,568,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  63,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,505,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.62)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Scott Geddes, Petitioner, v John Wilmot, as Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Mahoney, P. J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of a Superintendent’s proceeding which found petitioner guilty of violating a disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility, was charged with assault based on an incident wherein he was alleged to have attacked a correction officer. The only evidence offered in support of the charge was the misbehavior report written by the officer who had allegedly been assaulted. The report was indorsed by two other officers who witnessed the incident. Petitioner testified in his own behalf, but did not call any witnesses. Petitioner was found guilty, and such finding was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the determination.

Initially, we reject petitioner’s contention that the determination is, per se, unsupported by substantial evidence on the ground that it is supported only by a written misbehavior report *(see, Matter of Burgos v Coughlin,*108 AD2d 194).

The misbehavior report states that petitioner cursed Correction Officer W. J. Greiner and then pushed him down onto a desk. Petitioner was restrained by other officers and pulled off Greiner. Petitioner testified that another correction officer pushed him into Greiner. However, petitioner did not call this officer or any other individuals as witnesses. Thus, the hearing *475officer was presented with an issue of credibility which he resolved against petitioner. It cannot be said that the determination was unsupported by substantial evidence.

We also reject petitioner’s claim that he was not provided adequate assistance to prepare his defense. By failing to raise this issue at the hearing, when any error could have been rectified, petitioner waived it *(cf. Matter of Guzman v Coughlin,*90 AD2d 666).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**832 CA 14-02201**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

FARASA BROWN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
WILLIAM PHIPPS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CABANISS CASEY LLP, ALBANY (BRIAN D. CASEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LIPSITZ & PONTERIO LLC, BUFFALO (NEIL J. MCKINNON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered September 27, 2014. The order withdrew the order of the court entered February 21, 2014, denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment and reinstated the complaint.
Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on July 15, 2015, and filed in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office on July 30, 2015,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: October 9, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY LEE HOWZE, AKA J. L. Howze,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, public entity,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 56154

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 04067

- SVW

RAO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2019 **

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Johnny Lee Howze, AKA J.L. Howze, appeals pro

se from the district court’s judgment dismissi ng his action alleging violations of

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 56154

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

. Knievel v. ESPN
, 393 F.3d 1068 , 10 72

(9th Cir. 2005 ) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Howze’s ADA claim for monetary

damages because Howze failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant

intentionally discriminated against him because of his disa bility

. See Duvall v.

County of Kitsap , 260 F.3d 1124, 1135, 1138

- 40 (9th Cir. 2001) ( discussing

elements of a Title II claim under the ADA , and the required showing of

intentional discrimination to state a Title II claim for damages ) ; see also Gonzalez

v. Planned Parenthood of L.A. , 759 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2014) (the court

need not accept as true allegations contradicted by documents refer enced in the

complaint) ; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz. , 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010)

(“The AD A prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate

treatment for disability.”)

.

Howze’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is

denied.

Defendant’s motion to revoke Howze’s in forma pauperis status (Docket

Entry No. 16) is denied. Defendant’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry3 18

- 56154

No. 17) is denied as u nnecessary

.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 143 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16102]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-
Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: July 29, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
July 12, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class 
Package Service Contract 74 to Competitive Product List. Documents are 
available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-112, CP2021-114.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2021-16102 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:180
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:181
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:182
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:183
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:184
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:185
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:186
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:187
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:188
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/23/03 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:189
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





- Searchable Databases
- Datasets and Models
- Insect and Pathogen Identification
- Biocontrol FAQs 4 Kids
- BA Internet Classroom
- Harvest for the Hungry: Gleaning at Beltsville
- Weather Data

testformheadline bar


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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1526

REINALDO OLAVARRIA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ROY COOPER, Governor; BARBARA GIBSON, Director of North Carolina Human Resources; MARK MARTIN, Chief Justice; CHARLTON A. ALLEN, Chair of the North Carolina Industrial Commission; ZACHARY PADGET; RANA BADWIN, in her Official Capacity; ALEXANDER WALTON, in his Official Capacity; ERIKA FRAZIER, in her Official Capacity; MANDY COHEN, NCDHHS Secretary , De fendants

- Appellees,
and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:17

- cv
- 00590

- D )

Submitted : September 22, 2020 Decided: October 2, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Reinaldo Olavarria, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Reinaldo Olavarria appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ post

remand motions to dismiss Olavarria’s civil claims against the State of North Carolina and several public officials

. * We have reviewed the record and fin d no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

. See Olava r ria v. Cooper , No

. 5:17

- cv
- 00590

- D ( E.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 2020 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres ented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* We previously remanded this matter to the district court for further consideration in light of Fort Bend C n ty., Tx. v. Davis , 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019)

. See Olavarria v. Cooper , 776 F. App’x 128 (4th Cir. 2019) (No. 19

- 1536). Defendants filed new motions t o dismiss on remand and the district court granted the motions, in part, and dismissed the action without prejudice. Although the district court ’s dismissal was without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F. 3d 605, 615 (4th Cir. 2020).
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15821]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 25, 2021, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Media Workflow 
Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Christie Digital Systems, Phoenix, AZ; Cobalt Digital 
Inc., Champaign, IL; and Pedro Ferreira (individual member), Lavra, 
PORTUGAL, have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Beijing Gefei Tech Co., Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 
CHINA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, 
Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed 
its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 24, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 8, 2021 (86 FR 18299).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-15821 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
# C_2020077EN.01003301.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 December 2019 — A

(Case C-950/19)

(2020/C 77/44)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Other party to the proceedings: Patentti- ja rekisterihallituksen tilintarkastuslautakunta

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 22a(1) (inserted by Directive 2014/56/EU) (1) of Directive 2006/43/EC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a key audit partner takes up a position of the kind referred to in this provision upon conclusion of the employment contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 22a(1) (inserted by Directive 2014/56/EU) (1) of Directive 2006/43/EC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a key audit partner takes up a position of the kind referred to in this provision upon conclusion of the employment contract?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Is Article 22a(1) to be interpreted as meaning that a key audit partner takes up a position of the kind referred to in this provision upon commencing employment in the position concerned? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Is Article 22a(1) to be interpreted as meaning that a key audit partner takes up a position of the kind referred to in this provision upon commencing employment in the position concerned?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 158, p. 196.

(2)  Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87).

---