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
 Genetic Improvement for Fruits & Vegetables Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Genetic Improvement for Fruits & Vegetables Laboratory People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Contact Information
- Research Projects
- Publications
- ARS News Articles
- Strawberry Releases
- Low Tunnels
- Anthracnose Resistant Cultivars

Kimberly S Lewers
                     

                     Research Geneticist (Plants)
                     


                        ProjectsStrawberry Crop Improvement through Breeding, Genetics, Genomics, and Molecular Biology
                                       In-House Appropriated

                                                   (D)Accession Number: 444039An Image Analysis and Interpretation System to Facilitate High Throughput Disease Screening of Field-Grown Strawberry Breeding Plants
                                       Non-Assistance Cooperative Agreement

                                                   (S)Accession Number: 444771


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
#### Kun Sik Kim, Respondent, v State Street Hospitality, LLC, et al., Appellants, and Dan’s Hauling & Demo, Inc., Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 272]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants State Street Hospitality, LLC, Nytex Development, Inc., and Martin Environmental Services, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated November 24, 2010, as denied that branch of their motion which was denominated as one for *711leave to renew the prior motion of the defendant Dan’s Hauling & Demo, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against that defendant, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated September 20, 2010, but which was, in actuality, to vacate their default in opposing that prior motion and for leave to submit opposition papers to the prior motion, and denied those branches of their motion which were to strike the action from the trial calendar and to compel further discovery.

Ordered that the order dated November 24, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

That branch of the appellants’ motion which was denominated as one for leave to renew the prior motion, of the defendant Dan’s Hauling & Demo, Inc. (hereinafter Dan’s Hauling), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against that defendant, was, in actuality, to vacate their default in opposing that prior motion *(see*CPLR 2221 [a]) and for leave to submit opposition papers to the prior motion. As the Supreme Court determined, the evidence submitted in support of the appellants’ motion established a reasonable excuse for their failure to oppose the prior motion. Nonetheless, as the Supreme Court properly determined, the appellants’ submissions failed to establish the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the prior motion *(see Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.,*48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]; *cf. Kohn v Kohn,*86 AD3d 630 [2011]). The new documents proffered by the appellants simply showed that Dan’s Hauling subcontracted with the plaintiffs employer some time after the plaintiff allegedly was injured. That evidence was not sufficient to defeat the motion of Dan’s Hauling for summary judgment. Further, as the Supreme Court correctly determined, the appellants’ mere hope and speculation that further discovery would lead to evidence sufficient to defeat that prior motion was insufficient *(see Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc.,*34 AD3d 759, 760 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying those branches of the appellants’ motion which were, in effect, to vacate their default in opposing the prior motion and for leave to submit opposition papers to the prior motion, and to strike the action from the trial calendar and to compel further discovery. Balkin, J.P., Belen, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 29 Misc 3d 1212(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51803(U).]
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 120

To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to make certain graduate

programs in clinical psychology eligible to participate in various health

professions loan programs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to

make certain graduate programs in clinical psychology

eligible to participate in various health professions loan

programs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFES4 SIONS LOAN PROGRAMS.

5 (a) LOAN AGREEMENTS.—Section 721 of the Public

6 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292q) is amended—
2

•S 120 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, or any

2 public or nonprofit schools that offer graduate pro3 grams in clinical psychology’’ after ‘‘veterinary

4 medicine’’;

5 (2) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ‘‘or doctor

6 of veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree’’ and

7 inserting ‘‘doctor of veterinary medicine or an equiv8 alent degree, or a graduate degree in clinical psy9 chology’’; and

10 (3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ‘‘, or

11 schools that offer graduate programs in clinical psy12 chology’’ after ‘‘veterinary medicine’’.

13 (b) LOAN PROVISIONS.—Section 722 of the Public

14 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292r) is amended—

15 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘or doctor

16 of veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree’’ and

17 inserting ‘‘doctor of veterinary medicine or an equiv18 alent degree, or a graduate degree in clinical psy19 chology’’; and

20 (2) in subsection (k)—

21 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1),

22 by striking ‘‘or podiatry’’ and inserting ‘‘podia23 try, or clinical psychology’’; and
3

•S 120 IS

1 (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘or

2 podiatric medicine’’ and inserting ‘‘podiatric

3 medicine, or clinical psychology’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement
Pursuant To
18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned, Paul E. Ross, the Chief Financial Officer of Meade Instruments Corp. (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
hereby certifies that:

(i)    the
Form 10Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2008 of the Company (the "Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:
July 18, 2008

By:

/s/PAUL E. ROSSPaul E. Ross Senior Vice PresidentFinance and
Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
# C_2022084EN.01003702.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — KS v Frontex

(Case T-409/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Termination of the contract - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Article 47(b)(ii) of the CEOS - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Requests for assistance and compensation - Action for annulment and compensation)

(2022/C 84/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KS (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard, S. Drew, W. Szmidt and B. Dukay-Zangrando, acting as Agents, and by T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Frontex’s decision of 30 August 2019 terminating the applicant’s fixed-term contract of employment and of the decision of 13 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s requests for assistance and compensation and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant has suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) of 13 February 2020 in so far as it rejected KS’s request for assistance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) of 13 February 2020 in so far as it rejected KS’s request for assistance;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders KS to bear half of his own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders KS to bear half of his own costs;

| 4. | Orders Frontex to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by KS. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Frontex to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by KS.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

BEA SYSTEMS, INC.

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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark P. Dentinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.

Date: November 15, 2007



/s/ Mark P. DentingerMark P. DentingerChief Financial Officer
(June 13, 1985)

#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Donald May, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion (Rules App Div, 2d Dept, 22 NYCRR 670.17 [i]) from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerny, J.), imposed November 28, 1984.

On the court’s own motion, appeal taken as a matter of right dismissed; the motion papers submitted by defendant shall be deemed a motion, pursuant to CPL 450.15 (3) and 460.15, for leave to appeal to this court from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), imposed November 28, 1984 upon defendant’s plea of guilty agreed to as part of a plea bargain; and the motion is referred to Hon. Charles B. Lawrence, an Associate Justice of this court.

On October 30,1984, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, in full satisfaction of two indictments, with the “understanding” that the sentence to be imposed “would be a minimum sentence, three years to life”. The court indicated at the change of plea proceeding that it would permit defendant to withdraw his plea if the sentence could not be imposed based upon a review of defendant’s background and the presentence Probation Department report. At sentencing, the court did impose the agreed-upon sentence. Upon defendant’s appeal taken as of right, the sole issue raised is the excessiveness of the sentence imposed. Since the instant plea of guilty was entered after August 31, 1984, the effective date of the amendments to CPL 220.50, 340.20, 450.10, 450.15 and 450.30 (L 1984, ch 671), an appeal does not lie as a matter of right with respect to this issue because the sentence imposed “was predicated upon entry of a plea of guilty and * * * did not exceed that which was agreed to by the defendant as a condition of the plea and set forth in the record * * * as required by subdivision five of section 220.50” (CPL 450.10 [2], as amended by L 1984, ch 671, § 4). Accordingly, the instant appeal must be dismissed. However, the papers submitted by defendant shall be deemed a motion, pursuant to CPL *841450.15 [3] and 460.15, for leave to appeal to this court and the motion is referred to Hon. Charles B. Lawrence, an Associate Justice of this court. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LHS GROUP INC. FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          75,738
<SECURITIES>                                    58,566
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,742
<INVENTORY>                                      4,755
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               238,693
<PP&E>                                          38,639
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 264,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,768
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           577
<OTHER-SE>                                     183,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   264,719
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192,885
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (3,516)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,276
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,135
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,141
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,141
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Wynn, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 713]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, PJ., Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
#### Alexandra Marinkovic, Respondent, v IPC International of Illinois et al., Appellants.

[943 NYS2d 561]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered April 1, 2011, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against the defendants Simon Property Group, L.P, Simon Property Group, Inc., Simon Property Group Administrative Services Partnership, L.P, Roosevelt Field Partners, LLC, Roosevelt Field Development, LLC, and Roosevelt Field Association, Inc., and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when a mall security guard, the defendant John Doe, riding on a Segway, a two-wheeled transportation device, struck her from behind while she was walking down a corridor in the Roosevelt Field Mall. The security guard allegedly was employed by the defendants IPC International of Illionis and IPC International, Inc.

In support of her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law against the defendants IPC International of Illinois, IPC International, Inc., and John Doe by demonstrating, prima facie, that the security guard’s negligent operation of the Segway was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that she exercised due care at the time of the accident *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants’ objection to the admissibility of the plaintiff’s deposition transcript is being raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore not properly before this Court *(see Lowe v Meacham Child Care & Learning Ctr., Inc.,*74 AD3d 1029 [2010]; *Ross v Gidwani,*47 AD3d 912 [2008]).

However, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie *840entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability against the defendants Simon Property Group, L.E, Simon Property Group, Inc., Simon Property Group Administrative Services Partnership, L.E, Roosevelt Field Partners, LLC, Roosevelt Field Development, LLC, and Roosevelt Field Association, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the Simon defendants). The plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form to establish the Simon defendants’ liability, if any, with respect to the accident. Since the plaintiff failed to meet her prima facie burden as to the Simon defendants, that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against those defendants should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1079 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1079

   To permit the leasing of mineral rights, in any case in which the 
Indian owners of an allotment that is located within the boundaries of 
 the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and held in trust by the United 
  States have executed leases to more than 50 percent of the mineral 
                       estate of that allotment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 29, 1997

Mr. Dorgan (for himself and Mr. Conrad) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To permit the leasing of mineral rights, in any case in which the 
Indian owners of an allotment that is located within the boundaries of 
 the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and held in trust by the United 
  States have executed leases to more than 50 percent of the mineral 
                       estate of that allotment.

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

SECTION 1. LEASES OF ALLOTTED LANDS OF THE FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN 
              RESERVATION.

    (a) In General.--
            (1) Approval by secretary of the interior.--
                    (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other 
                provision of law (including the Act of March 3, 1909 
                (35 Stat. 783, chapter 263; 25 U.S.C. 396) and the 
                regulations issued under that Act), the Secretary of 
                the Interior or a designee of the Secretary may approve 
                mineral leases of an allotment described in paragraph 
                (2) in any case in which the Indian owners of that 
                allotment have executed leases to more than 50 percent 
                of the mineral estate of that allotment.
                    (B) Benefits of leases.--At such time as mineral 
                leases on an allotment have been approved for all 
                Indian ownership interests pursuant to this section, 
                all Indian owners of the allotment shall be entitled to 
                the benefits of the leases.
            (2) Allotment.--An allotment described in this paragraph is 
        an allotment that--
                    (A) is located in the Fort Berthold Indian 
                Reservation, North Dakota; and
                    (B) is held in trust by the United States.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--This Act supersedes the Act of March 3, 
1909 (35 Stat. 783, chapter 263; 25 U.S.C. 396) only to the extent 
provided in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```