alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Daniel T. Martelle, Petitioner, v Stephen L. Margeson, as Chief of Police of the Village of Wellsville, et al., Respondents.

— Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: The record contains substantial evidence in support of the determination that petitioner, a police officer, was guilty of misconduct in twice issuing bad checks to local merchants and failing to make restitution until several weeks after each incident and only after repeated warnings by the police chief *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222; *Matter of Monroe v Board of Public Safety,*73 AD2d 996). The fact that petitioner’s misconduct occurred while he was off duty does not mitigate the gravity of his errors *(see, Matter of Zazycki v City of Albany,*94 AD2d 925, *lv denied*60 NY2d 558). The penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Alfieri v Murphy,*38 NY2d 976; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra,*at 233). There is *990no merit to petitioner’s argument that the matter should be remitted because prior warnings in his employment record were considered in his punishment without his having an opportunity to respond *(cf. Matter of Bigelow v Board of Trustees,*63 NY2d 470). The penalty imposed was appropriate for the violations, considering the facts in the hearing record, regardless of the warnings. Thus, remittal would serve no purpose and is unnecessary *(see, Matter of Kleinsmith v Connelie,*68 AD2d 271, 272-273). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining claims and find them without merit. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Allegany County, Kelly, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 145 (Monday, August 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Notice of Intent to Grant an Exclusive Patent License

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, 
the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to 
grant an exclusive patent license to mPower, Inc., a woman-owned small 
business and energy supplier, having a place of business at 5901 Indian 
School Rd NE, Albuquerque, NM 87110.

DATES: Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) 
calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to Matthew O'Brien, RDOX, 
Technology Transfer Office, Directed Energy Directorate, 3550 Aberdeen 
Avenue, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico 87117-5776; Telephone: 505-846-5028; 
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#107d7164647875673e7f726279757e3e22275065633e71763e7d797c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="610c0015150904164f0e031308040f4f53562114124f00074f0c080d">[email protected]</span></a>. Include Docket No. PRS180 in the 
subject line of the message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Carr, RDOX, Technology 
Transfer Office, Directed Energy Directorate, 3550 Aberdeen Avenue, 
Kirtland AFB, New Mexico 87117-5776; Telephone: 505-321-3542; Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea99828b84848584c4898b9898c4d9c4899e98aa9f99c48b8cc4878386"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdced5dcd3d3d2d393dedccfcf938e93dec9cffdc8ce93dcdb93d0d4d1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force intends to 
grant the exclusive patent license agreement for the invention 
described in: U.S. Patent No. 8,974,899, entitled ``Pseudomorphic Glass 
for Space Solar Cells,'' issued 10 March, 2015.
    The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license 
unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant 
of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or 
implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license 
agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by 
the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated 
as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed 
license.

Adriane Paris,
Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-16349 Filed 7-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.3

Eastern Division

Traci Radmanovich, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:01−cv−09502

Hon. James B. Zagel

Combined Insurance Company of America

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, February 3, 2005:

 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel :Motion to clarify [112] is granted,

Motion for judgment [112]is granted, Motion hearing held on 2/3/2005 regarding motion

by plaintiff to clarify, motion by defendant for judgment[112], (drw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:01-cv-09502 Document #: 114 Filed: 02/03/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:623
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1120 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1120

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 3, 1997

              Referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
       To provide for a consultant for the President pro tempore.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 101(a) of 
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1977 (2 U.S.C. 61h-6(a)) is 
amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ``The 
President pro tempore of the Senate is authorized to appoint and fix 
the compensation of 1 consultant, on a temporary or intermittent basis, 
at a daily rate of compensation not in excess of that specified in the 
first sentence of this subsection.''.

            Passed the Senate July 31, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### In the Matter of Marla A. Band, Appellant. District *598Attorney, Nassau County, Respondent.

—In a proceeding pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 1510 (e), petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated January 4, 1985, which denied her application for an order permitting the exhumation of her mother’s body for the purpose of performing an autopsy.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner seeks to have her mother’s body exhumed and reautopsied in order to determine the exact cause of death. Although an autopsy previously established that the death was caused by "asphyxia by unspecified means” and petitioner’s father has been convicted of the murder of the deceased, petitioner contends that the procedures followed during the autopsy were inadequate to rule out the possibility of death by accidental means.

"Good and substantial reasons” must be shown before a court will sanction disinterment *(Matter of Currier [Woodlawn Cemetery],*300 NY 162, 164). A court, in exercising a " 'benevolent discretion’ ”, must consider all the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case *(Matter of Currier [Woodlawn Cemetery] supra,*p 164). In the case at bar, petitioner has stated that exhumation is necessary to answer questions concerning her mother’s death. The petition has been opposed by the deceased’s father and brother, on personal and religious grounds, and by the District Attorney’s office, which points out that petitioner’s questions concerning the autopsy and death were already considered and resolved by the jury which convicted petitioner’s father of murder.

We agree with Special Term that petitioner has not shown the "good and substantial reasons” required to justify disinterment. Her reason for seeking exhumation, to ascertain the cause of death, has already been determined by a jury after a full trial. Since it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that a second autopsy, to be conducted more than five years after the death, will yield results which are both different from and more conclusive than the first, we cannot find that petitioner’s interest in having a second autopsy performed outweighs the interest of the deceased’s father and brother in having her remains left undisturbed. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Special Term’s denial of the petition was an improper exercise of discretion. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LINEAR HARDEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D13-2074

[July 29, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael Usan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12005415CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Lesley N. Clark, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. 

Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for grand theft over 

$100,000. He raises a single issue, with multiple subparts, of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. “Generally, claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal.” Gould v. State, 137 So. 3d 

524, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “An exception exists ‘only in the rare case 

where both prongs of Strickland—the error and the prejudice—are 

manifest in the record.’” Id. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted) (quoting 

Boyd v. State, 45 So. 3d 557, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). This exception is 

rarely applicable because “[s]uch claims ordinarily turn on issues of fact 

and both sides are entitled to present relevant evidence to the trial court 

to resolve those issues.” Gordon v. State, 469 So. 2d 795, 798 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 1985) (Anstead, C.J., concurring specially). 

This case does not fall within the exception. We therefore affirm 

without prejudice to the defendant raising his claim in a motion, pursuant 

to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed without prejudice.
2

KLINGENSMITH, J., and ROBY, WILLIAM L., Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 55-1 Filed 02/23/05 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 55-1 Filed 02/23/05 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 55-1 Filed 02/23/05 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 55-1 Filed 02/23/05 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 55-1 Filed 02/23/05 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 55-1 Filed 02/23/05 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 55-1 Filed 02/23/05 Page 7 of 7
# Official Journal C 191/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 191 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4915 August 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 191

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4915 August 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 191/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 191/2 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 2 |
| 2006/C 191/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4363 — Yum/Pizza Hut) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 3 |
| 2006/C 191/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4339 — SCOR/Revios) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 191/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 191/2

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

2

2006/C 191/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4363 — Yum/Pizza Hut) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

3

2006/C 191/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4339 — SCOR/Revios) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2006/C 191/5 | Notice | s3 |

2006/C 191/5

Notice

Notice

s3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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
 Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Orders & ServicesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Walnut Inventoryheadline 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
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 7993** 

CHARLIE MATTHEWS ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

VALERIE MURRAY; DR. COLIN OTTEY; WILLIAM BEEMAN; GREG FLURY; LISA SCHINDLER ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D . Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv
- 00059

- RDB )

Submitted : February 27 , 2014 Decided: March 5 , 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Charlie Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle Jacquelyn Marzullo, Richard P. Seitz, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland; Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverd ale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Charlie Matthews appeals the district court ’ s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Matthews v. Murray , No. 1:13

- cv
- 00059

- RDB (D. Md. Dec.

4, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented i n the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DARLENE MOORE, )
Plaintiff )
vs. } No. 02 C 5130
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., }
Defendants. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff moves to bar two witnesses not disclosed by defendants by a supplement to
their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures prior to the close of discovery. That motion is denied, but
plaintiff, if she wishes, may depose either or both of those witnesses prior to trial.

Ordinarily a party must disclose early on the witnesses upon whom the party may rely.
The reason is evident —so that the other party, if she so wishes, can discover what information
that witness may have. Here, neither plaintiff nor defendants were aware of either witness
when the case began. Plaintiff’s history respecting employment, arrests and medical problems,
all relevant to damages, came out in dribs and drabs, as defendants probed into information
that was gradually disclosed. That led defendants to move to dismiss because of perccived
discovery abuses. The motion was denied in a 26-page opinion on June 14, 2006, which
detailed the painful course of discovery during this litigation.

During that painful course defendants learned from subpoenaed documents that a
supervisor at a prior employment had terminated plaintiff for failure to meet minimal
expectations, and that a security officer at a store had been involved in plaintiff’s arrest on one

occasion, and had observed her conduct at the time. Those are the witnesses plaintiff now


No. 02 C 5130 Page 2

seeks to bar because they were not designated in a supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure prior
to the close of discovery. But plaintiff learned just as much as defendant about those witnesses
from the documents. Her real concern, it seems, is that she was not advised that defendants
might call them as witnesses at trial and therefore she did not depose them. She implies that
defendants should have deposed them, but they had no obligation to do so. In any event, the
trial is not until September. Perhaps defendants should have filed a formal disclosure when
they determined that they might rely upon those persons, but their names and roles were
known to plaintiff. A trial is not a place, however, for discovery depositions, and, assuming
that defendants are intending to call them at trial, plaintiff should have an opportunity to

depose them first.

JAMES B. MORAN
ior Judge, U. S. District Court

His a4 ,2007.
# Official Journal L 274/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 274 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6024 October 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 274

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6024 October 2017

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2017/1912 of 9 October 2017 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 1 |
| | | Agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 3 |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2017/1913 of 9 October 2017 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Iceland concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products | 57 |
| | | Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Iceland concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products | 58 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2017/1912 of 9 October 2017 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs

1

Agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs

3

*

Council Decision (EU) 2017/1913 of 9 October 2017 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Iceland concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products

57

Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Iceland concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products

58

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:38
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:39
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:40
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:41
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:42
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:43
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:44
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:45
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:46
Case: 1:01-cv-04198 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/13/02 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:47
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coley QUINN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-12921

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 14, 2009.

Coley Quinn, Miami, FL, pro se.

Before ANDERSON, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This court sua sponte vacates and withdraws its previous opinion in this case. The panel will hold decision in this case in abeyance pending the resolution of *United States v. Davis,*No. 08-12321, which is scheduled for oral argument on February 4, 2009.