alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge 1 for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2767

___________ Mazander Engineered Equipment, * Inc., * * Plaintiff/Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Goulds Pumps, Inc., a foreign * District Court for the corporation; * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Defendant/Appellee, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Tencarva Machinery Company, * a foreign corporation; John * Does 1-10, doing business as * Tencarva Machinery Company, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 1997 Filed: February 14, 1997

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, BEAM, Circuit Judge, an d ALSOP, District Judge.

1

___________ PER CURIAM.
MazanderEngineered Equipment contracted to distribut e products manufactured by Goulds Pumps. The contract specifi ed that either party could terminate t he contract at will upon sixty days' notice, and further specified that New York law would control the-2-

cont ract. When Goulds Pumps later terminated the contract , Mazander brought suit, raising various claims including breach ofThe Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for 2 the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- contra ct and violations of the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act , Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-72-201 to 210.
The district court concluded that the contract's designation 2 of New York law should be given effect under Arkansas choice -of-law rul es. The district court therefore concluded that the Arkansa s Franchise Practices Act did not govern the parties' contract, and further found that Goulds Pumps's termination was valid under New Yorklaw. The district court granted summary judgment to Gould s Pumps. Mazander appeals.
Afte rcarefully reviewing the parties' briefs and relevan t law, we conclude that the district court's choice and application of New York law was clearly correct and that extended discus sion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Official Journal C 167/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 167 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4919 July 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 167

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4919 July 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 167/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 167/2 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004, on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1) | 2 |
| 2006/C 167/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4255 — Evraz/Strategic Minerals) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 12 |
| 2006/C 167/4 | Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the antidumping measures applicable to imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China | 13 |
| 2006/C 167/5 | Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures | 17 |
| 2006/C 167/6 | Notice concerning an exemption granted to one company in Taiwan from the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of glyphosate consigned from Taiwan | 18 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 167/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 167/2

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004, on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1)

2

2006/C 167/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4255 — Evraz/Strategic Minerals) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

12

2006/C 167/4

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the antidumping measures applicable to imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China

13

2006/C 167/5

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

17

2006/C 167/6

Notice concerning an exemption granted to one company in Taiwan from the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of glyphosate consigned from Taiwan

18

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 167/7 | Call for proposals under the multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (Safer Internet plus) (1) | 20 |

III   Notices

Commission

2006/C 167/7

Call for proposals under the multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (Safer Internet plus) (1)

20

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2006/C 167/8 | Notice | s3 |

2006/C 167/8

Notice

Notice

s3

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
(56 Misc. Rep. 118.)

#### In re HICKEY.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

October 9, 1907.)

Municipal Corporations—Police Officers — Pension Roll — Removal ~ Grounos.

One exercising rights of citizenship for upwards of 21 years, and discharging the duties of a police officer for 16 years, until retired and pensioned for disability, cannot be summarily removed from the pension roll on the ground of fraud in the. proceedings for his naturalization, committed by others without his knowledge.

Mandamus, on the application of John J. Hickey, praying for his restoration to the pension roll of the police department of the city of New York. Granted.

Theron Davis, for petitioner.

Francis K. Pendleton, for respondent.

*149FORD, J.

Relator exercised the rights and performed the duties-of citizenship for upwards of 21 years. For more than 16 years he was a member of the police force de facto, faithfully discharging his duties until retired and pensioned on account of disability incurred in the service. He regularly contributed to the pension fund a portion of his salary, presumably in the honest belief that by so doing he was acquiring in it a vested interest. He had actually commenced to draw his pension before it was discovered that his original naturalization papers were procured for him in 1885 by fraud practiced upon the court by other persons, without knowledge or intent on his part. This is unquestioned in the papers before me. Upon discovery, in 1907, of the illegality of his naturalization, may the police commissioner, as trustee of the police pension fund, summarily cut off his pension and thus deprive him of the benefits of that fund and the fruits of his long and' faithful service? The law will not strain her vision, peering into the remote past to discover irregularity in an act which, ever since has been the source of a multitude of other acts now inextricably interwoven in the fabric of civic life. If relator is not held to have been a policeman during his 16 years of service, then every arrest he made and every act he did during that period were illegal. The seriousness of the consequences which might flow from such a ruling is obvious.

The application for a peremptory writ of mandamus to restore him to the pension roll should be granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herman Riley, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: During defendant’s trial on an indictment *1029alleging a criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, the trial court erroneously charged criminal possession in the sixth degree and eighth degree as lesser included offenses. "[I]t is not necessary to possess a controlled substance in order to offer or agree to sell it * * * Accordingly, possession offenses relating to controlled substances are not lesser included offenses of those crimes prohibiting their sale” *(People v Cogle,*94 AD2d 158, 159; *see, People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61, 63). However, the error is harmless and does not require reversal since the jury found defendant guilty of the higher crime and never considered the lesser offenses *(People v Scarincio,*95 AD2d 967, 969).

Our examination of the record reflects that defendant was represented by reasonably competent counsel and was not denied a fair trial *(see, People v Módica,*64 NY2d 828, 829). Defendant’s other claims of error have been examined and found to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Cornelius, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
#### Kiwon S., Respondent, v Daniel S., Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 888]-

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered September 15, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for pendente lite relief to the extent of directing defendant to pay plaintiffs attorney interim counsel fees in the amount of $100,000, subject to reallocation at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in awarding counsel fees, given the evidence of the large discrepancy in the parties’ respective incomes, the significant business investments within defendant’s control, the nature of the issues in dispute, and plaintiffs lack of sufficient funds of her own to compensate counsel without depleting her limited assets *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; *Charpié v Charpié,*271 AD2d 169, 173 [2000]; *see also Dodson v Dodson,*46 AD3d 305 [2007]).

Plaintiffs moving papers included both the requisite statement of net worth and affirmation of counsel *(see*22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [2], [3]). The court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs failure to provide an updated state-*681merit of net worth was not fatal to her motion. Although an updated net worth statement would have given the court the most current information, there was no evidence that plaintiff’s economic condition had substantially changed from what had been reported on her previously-submitted recent net worth statement. Nor was movant required to submit a personal affidavit *(see*22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [2], [3]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Blount International, Inc. (the " Company ") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the " Report "), I, Joshua L. Collins, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.





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


Date: November 22, 2013





/s/ Joshua L. CollinsJoshua L. CollinsChairman andChief Executive Officer
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 24, 2009

s0217 

# Order

February 24, 2009

137532

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137532 COA: 286539 Muskegon CC: 00-045041-FH THEODORE A. LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 9, 2008 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Tyler, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 496]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J., at suppression hearing; Richard D. Carruthers, J, at plea and sentencing), rendered May 20, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest *(see generally People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]). Defendant met a very detailed description of a person who sold drugs to an undercover officer, and defendant appeared at the prearranged time and place of a prospective drug sale that was clearly linked to the completed sale. The brief detention by the police of another suspect was satisfactorily explained. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.
#### MOSES v. NEWBURGH ELECTRIC RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Damages—Physical Examination of Plaintiff—Affidavit.

An affidavit for the physical examination of plaintiff in an action impersonal injuries need not allege that defendant intends to use on the trial the information to be gained.

Appeal from special term, Orange county.

Action by Emily Moses against the Newburgh Electric Railway Company for personal injuries. From an order directing that plaintiff submit to a physical examination, she appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

G-uggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, for appellant.

William D. Dickey, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries, and the moving affidavit states that defendant is ignorant of the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries. That is not contradicted, and it makes a good cause for allowing the examination. The objection that there is no allegation that defendant intends to malee use of the examination upon the trial is frivolous. Obviously, a party cannot have any intelligent purpose as to whether he will use testimony until he knows what it is to be. If it proves favorable to the party by whom it is taken, it will ordinarily be read by that party; if unfavorable, it will ordinarily be read by the other party. In the present case, if, on the trial, the plaintiff’s witnesses testify to the same facts that this examination discloses, there will be no need to produce it.

Order appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### Chaya Rinberg et al., Appellants, v RGI Properties, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Chapel Hill Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 819]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered September 7, 2010, as, upon reargument, in effect, *861vacated so much of an order of the same court entered March 18, 2010, as denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Chapel Hill Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assert against it, and thereupon granted that branch of the motion.

Ordered that the order entered September 7, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Chaya Rinberg (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) alleged that on October 10, 2006, she slipped and fell on wet grass in a common area located outside of her condominium unit within the Hillside at Chapel Hill, which is one of six subdivisions within the Chapel Hill Estates complex in Peeks-kill. The injured plaintiff, and her husband, suing derivatively, commenced this action to recover damages from, among others, the defendant Chapel Hill Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. (hereinafter the Association).

The Association established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it had no duty to maintain the area where the injured plaintiff allegedly fell (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Pulka v Edelman,*40 NY2d 781 [1976]; *Delgardio v Davis,*86 AD3d 589 [2011]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d at 324; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court, upon reargument, in effect, properly vacated so much of its prior order as denied that branch of the Association’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and thereupon properly granted that branch of the motion. Angiolillo, J.P, Belen, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
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
 Crop Genetics Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Crop Genetics Research People & Locations







Angelie D Davis
                        Crop Genetics Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician(Biochemistry)
                        Phone: (662) 686-3125
                        
                        
                        Fax: (662) 686-5218(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
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1286 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1286

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
  certain amounts received as scholarships by an individual under the 
               National Health Corps Scholarship Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 9, 1997

 Mr. Jeffords introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
  certain amounts received as scholarships by an individual under the 
               National Health Corps Scholarship Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Health Service Corps 
Scholarship Program Incentive Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER THE NATIONAL HEALTH 
              CORPS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 117 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the exclusion from gross income 
amounts received as a qualified scholarship) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Subsections (a)'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections 
        (a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) National health corps scholarship program.--Paragraph 
        (1) shall not apply to any amount received by an individual 
        under the National Health Corps Scholarship Program under 
        section 338A(g)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to amounts received in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
1993.
                                 <all>
```