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
 National Germplasm Resources Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    References
                        Plant Inventory Books
                                    Atlas of Guatamalan Crop Wild Relatives
                    NewsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center National Germplasm Resources Laboratory People & Locations







Karen  Kittell

(Kay)
                        National Germplasm Resources Laboratory

                        




                        
                        IT Specialist
                        Phone: (301) 504-5115
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
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
 Poultry Research: Mississippi State, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Mississippi State, Mississippi Poultry Research People & Locations







James M Hill
                        Poultry Research

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Worker
                        Phone: (662) 320-7605
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:533
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:534
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:535
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:536
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:537
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:538
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:539
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:540
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:541
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:542
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:543
Case: 1:04-cv-03238 Document #: 93 Filed: 08/10/09 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:544
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00659-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Margarita LOPEZ,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV05720

Honorable John Longoria, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of 

court for this appeal are taxed against the party that incurred them. 

SIGNED April 1, 2020.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
AMERICAN HARDWARE )
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, )
a Delaware not-for-profit corporation, —_)
)
Plaintiff, y
)
vs. ) No. 03 C 9421
)
REED ELSEVIER, INC., a )
Massachusetts corporation, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
REED ELSEVIER, INC., a )
Massachusetts corporation, y
)
Counter-plaintiff,
vs.
AMERICAN HARDWARE

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION,
a Delaware not-for-profit corporation,
and TIMOTHY S. FARRELL,

wees ee

Counter-defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Reed Elsevier, Inc. (Reed) moves to limit discovery pending ruling on its
motion for partial summary judgment. The Freeman defendants join in that motion. The
motion is granted.
This motion has a “chicken and the egg” quality to it. The motion for partial summary
judgment seeks to foreclose claims arising prior to February 26, 2003, on the basis that they

were released. Reed recognizes that plaintiff is entitled to discovery respecting its fraudulent


No. 03 € 9421 Page 2

inducement contention and post-February 26, 2003 claims. Plaintiff recognizes that there is
not much sense in spending time and money on pre-February 26, 2003 claims until the motion
for partial summary judgment is decided. This court has said the same.

The real dispute, it appears, is determining what discovery is germane to the fraudulent
inducement contention and post-February 26, 2003 claims. Plaintiff insists Reed has used
more general discovery disputes — pending before Magistrate Judge Levin — to avoid even the
more limited discovery. Reed insists that plaintiff is unreasonably arguing that practically all
of its discovery relates, in some fashion, to the more limited inquiry, when it does not. That
dispute is one that should be decided by Judge Levin. The inquiry should, for now, be limited,

but what is or is not within the boundaries of that limitation is up to Judge Levin.

JAMES B. MORAN
nior Judge, U. S. District Court
! , 2004.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00345-CV

COLUMBIA VALLEY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, L.P. 

v.

RODOLFO J. WALSS, M.D., P.A.

On Appeal from the

138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013-DCL-7133-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs 

of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 29, 2015
#### City of New York, Appellant, v General Star Indemnity Company, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 686]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 9, 2011, which denied the City’s motion for leave to renew its motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant General Star Indemnity Company had a duty to indemnify the City and reimburse its defense costs in the now settled underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This declaratory judgment action stems from an underlying action in which the plaintiff therein, an employee of MVN Associates, Inc. (MVN), was allegedly injured during the course of his employment. MVN purchased liability insurance coverage under a “master policy” that General Star issued to the “Marine Contractors Alliance.” The master policy identified only the named insured, while MVN, as an insured under the policy, and the City, as an additional insured, were identified only on certificates of insurance which contained numbers and effective dates that did not match the master policy.

The City asserts that it is now clear from discovery that General Star received notice of the claim on June 27, 2002. Even if notice of claim was received on that date, questions of fact exist as to whether the information received, which failed to identify the named insured or the number of the master policy, provided a sufficient basis for disclaimer, or if sufficient documentation was not provided until July 8, 2002, as claimed by General Star *(see Hunter Roberts Constr. Group, LLC v Arch Ins. Co.,*75 AD3d 404, 409 [2010]). Accordingly, issues of fact also exist as to the timeliness of General Star’s investigation, which was not commenced until July 9, 2002, and subsequent disclaimer, is*432sued on August 7, 2002 *{id.).*Although General Star claims that it had to gather information from multiple sources to identify the policy and program applicable to the underlying claim, issues exist as to whether it conducted a “diligent” investigation *{see id.).*Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30296(11).]
#### Richard KELBY; Mabel Kelby, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-73286.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 22, 2011.

William Edward Taggart, Jr., Taggart & Hawkins, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Regina S. Moriarty, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Richard Farber, Esquire, Supervisory, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Rebecca Duewer-Grenville, IRS Office of Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*951Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Richard and Mabel Kelby appeal from the Tax Court’s decision denying their request for litigation costs pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7430. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. *Huffman v. Comm’r,*978 F.2d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Commissioner’s position on the 1989 tax liability was substantially justified, and thus the Kelbys were not the prevailing party, given the Kelbys’ failure to turn over Mabel Kelby’s notes until more than three years after the Kelbys filed their petition for review. *See*26 U.S.C. § 7430 (a party is not a “prevailing party” if the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified); 26 C.F.R. § 301.7430-5(c)(l) (“A significant factor in determining whether the position of the Internal Revenue Service is substantially justified as of a given date is whether, on or before that date, the taxpayer has presented all relevant information under the taxpayer’s control ... to the appropriate Internal Revenue Service personnel.”).

The Kelbys’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Robert Pacini, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered May 12, 2017, after a jury trial, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered May 12, 2017, affirmed.</p><p>By failing to make even generalized objections or request further relief after the court took curative action, defendant failed to preserve his challenges to the prosecutor's summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The bulk of the challenged remarks were either fair response to defense counsel's arguments on summation or fair comment on the evidence, and any improprieties were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (<i>see People v Garland</i>, 155 AD3d 527, 529 [2017], <i>affd </i>32 NY3d 1094 [2018]; <i>People v Feola</i>, 154 AD3d 638, 639 [2017], <i>lv denied </i>31 NY3d 1013 [2018]), and the court's curative instruction was sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see <i>People v Overlee</i>, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], <i>appeal denied </i>91 NY2d 976 [1998]). Nor could the prosecutor's comments be perceived as vouching for the credibility of the complainant since those remarks were a permissible comment on a matter of credibility, and the prosecutor did not become an unsworn witness (<i>see People v Ringer</i>, 90 AD3d 439, 439-440 [2011], <i>lv denied </i>18 NY3d 927 [2012]; <i>People v Massie</i>, 305 AD2d 116, 117 [2003], <i>affd</i> 2 NY3d 179 [2004]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<i><br> <br>Decision Date: March 18, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></i></partyblock>
#### Kathleen Neary, as Executrix of Raymond H. Neary and Another, Deceased, Respondent, v Tower Insurance, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[941 NYS2d 279]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendant Tower Insurance appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (E Rivera, J.), dated September 30, 2010, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Tower Insurance which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted.

Raymond H. Neary, Sr., and Janet T. Neary (hereinafter together the Nearys) owned a residence in Brooklyn (hereinafter the premises), which they insured under a homeowners’ policy (hereinafter the policy) with the defendant Tower Insurance (hereinafter Tower). The policy provided coverage only for premises where the Nearys, as the insureds, resided. On January 18, 2005, the premises were damaged in a fire. Tower disclaimed coverage on the ground that the Nearys did not reside at the premises at the time of the loss.

The Nearys commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages from Tower for breach of the insurance contract. Subsequently, the Nearys died, and their daughter, Kathleen Neary (hereinafter the plaintiff), was substituted as executrix of their estates.

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of Tower’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. “The standard for determining residency for purposes of insurance coverage requires something more than temporary or physical presence *726and requires at least some degree of permanence and intention to remain” *(Vela v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*83 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2011], quoting *Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Paolicelli,*303 AD2d 633, 633 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Rapp],*7 AD3d 302, 303 [2004]; *New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Kowalski,*195 AD2d 940, 941 [1993]). Mere intention to reside at certain premises is not sufficient *(see Vela v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*83 AD3d at 1051).

Tower established its prima face entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the Nearys did not reside at the subject premises when the fire occurred *(id.).*In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to her contention, the term “reside” or “residence” is not ambiguous *(id.; see Marshall v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*44 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2007]), and, therefore, must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning *(see Vela v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*83 AD3d at 1051). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 29 Misc 3d 1205(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51700(11).]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

DIANE R. SKIFF,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-CV-899-KI

JUDGMENT

Richard McGinty

McGinty & Belcher, 

P.O. Box 12806

Salem, OR 97301

Attorney for Plaintiff

Billy J. Williams

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:14-cv-00899-KI Document 29 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 2
Ronald K. Silver

Assistant United States Attorney

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600

Portland, OR 97201-2902

Leisa A. Wolf

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

701 Fifth Ave., Suite 2900 M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Attorneys for Defendant

KING, Judge:

Based on the record, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the

Commissioner is affirmed and this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of September, 2015. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

Page 2 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:14-cv-00899-KI Document 29 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Thad L. Kempisty et al., Appellants, v Town of Geddes et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for reargument denied. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Peter Maloney, Chief Financial Officer of Keynote Systems, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2004 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 10, 2004



|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|/s/ Peter Maloney                                                                 
|                                                                                  
|Peter Maloney Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Keynote Systems, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.