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 Arboretum: Washington, DC
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Stefanye C Washington
                        Office of The Director

                        




                        
                        IT Specialist
                        Phone: (202) 288-6423
                        
                        
                        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
AO 442 (Rev. IIIII) AITest Warrant OR\G\NAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.s. :.14 ,,,,. 

20]1 r 1101-f4Ls 

United States of America 

v. 

for the 

District of Oregon 

Ar1/r 16 h1 i;? rs 

JASON MICHAEL KEATING 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. '14-MJ- 57 

ARREST WARRANT 

To: Any authorized law enforcement officer 

YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay 

(""""of penon to 1M QI'Nsted} JASON MICHAEL KEATING 

who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court: 

a Indictment a Superseding Indictment a Infonnation a Superseding Infonnation rW Complaint 

a Probation Violation Petition a Supervised Release Vi~ation Petition a Violation Notice a Order of the Court 

'4![ This offense is briefly described as follows: l1 ,.., Lj 

RecelptotstolenGoods(1Bu.s.c.§231s) ~•lr£sr£o I (0 I 

Date: 04/1612014 

City and state: 

This warrant was received on (dote) 

at (city and .rlllle) 

Date: __________ __ 

By ::-3 lt 

~ 

Return 

______ ,and the person was arrested on (dote) _____ _ 

A.rnsting o.fftcer 's sigtltiiUI'e 

Prlrrted name and title 

Case 3:14-cr-00282-SI Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Kuba Brown, as President of Local 94-94A-94B, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v John C. Liu, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 110]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered March 30, 2011, granting respondents’ *550cross motion to dismiss the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, which sought, inter alia, to direct respondent Comptroller to conduct an investigation of the wage complaints filed by certain members of Local 94, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly determined that the union members, the custodian-helpers, were not entitled to the prevailing wage and benefits protection under Labor Law article 9. Under the “indirect system” of custodial care, the New York City Department of Education (DOE) employs custodian-engineers in accordance with civil service regulations, who in turn may employ custodian-helpers *(see generally Matter of Conlin v Aiello,*64 AD2d 921 [1978], *affd*49 NY2d 713 [1980]). The terms of the custodian-engineers’ employment are set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between their union and the DOE. Thus, since custodian-engineers are employees of the DOE, they are not “contractors,” and custodian-helpers are not their “building service employees,” as those terms are defined in Labor Law § 230 *et seq.*Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 31 Mise 3d 980.]
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 **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 Annual Report of Columbia Laboratories, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Fred Wilkinson, 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 to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the
      Company.
  
 /s/ Fred Wilkinson
      Fred
      Wilkinson
      Chief
      Executive Officer
      March
      16, 2005
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30370

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CEDRIC ALLEN SENNETT, also known as Cedric Veazia,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:02-CR-20047-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Cedric Allen Sennett has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sennett has not

filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of

the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2011 

0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2011 

141779 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 141779 

 COA: 290747 

Lenawee CC: 07-013418-FH 

PAUL ALLISON CORRIN, SR., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of November 22, 2010, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 

2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Smith (Docket No. 140371). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on December 29, 2010, 488 Mich 193 (2010), the application is again considered 

and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in 

part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Offense variable (OV) 19 was properly 

scored by the trial court because that offense variable provides for the consideration of 

conduct after the completion of the sentencing offense. People v Smith, 488 Mich 193 

(2010). OV 12 was properly scored by the trial court for the reasons stated in the Court 

of Appeals dissent. The psychological injury suffered by the victim’s family members 

and the likelihood of the defendant reoffending were properly considered by the trial 

court as substantial and compelling reasons that justify a departure from the statutory 

sentencing guidelines. Further, we are not persuaded that the standards set forth in 

People v Hill, 221 Mich App 391, 398 (1997), require reassigning the case to a different 

judge. Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the Lenawee Circuit Court so that the 

resentencing ordered by the Court of Appeals can occur before the same judge. In all 

other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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
 Insect Behavior and Biocontrol Research: Gainesville, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Gainesville, Florida Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology Insect Behavior and Biocontrol Research People & Locations







Nancy Jo Fieleke
                        Insect Behavior and Biocontrol Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician (Insects)
                        Phone: (352) 374-5801
                        
                        
                        Fax: (352) 374-5804(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
OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

OROVER SELLERS 

Asmr~rr GMIRAL 

am. Raymond L. Rillm~I 

~b~Lrsmn, Tems State PRrks Board 

Austin, Texes 

Denr SLrt Attentlont Mr. E. B. CsPiade 

Ret 

Opinion No. O-7120 

Icxtensfon of Llen by Stste 

Parka Board on Palo Duro 

CenYOn State P8rk 

"The Texas State Perks Boa 

oP retaining these lends in 

In brief meds ths follwlng 

Trust Conp~nyt 

opwon from you 

tnte Parka Boenl 

mob sn extsnalon 

ha, may we ml1 your 

cle No. 607Ob under the authority 

ume, the orlginsl indebtedness was 

r the authority of uhlch said 

ess would be revised and extended. 

"It it la found t&t the Texes State Perks 

Board has the authority to enter into ths cantract 

revising end extending the origins1 tndebtadneas, 
8~. myaaad I,. Dlllnrd - .PBgc 2 

then C(UI the %x&e 3Lete Parks Boati subjsot to the 

iadobtednesi, as revlaed aud erteadad, t;ha 120 amw 

nlesrted from the original LndrbtednessY The aum or 

$1,200.00 vaa paid to the ll.mt ll~n holder8 to obtain the release. and this w&8 a dm8tlon by the 

Cmrue Trwt Cotqwmy and Fped A. Itmay." 

In MSVOF t0 YOUX’ fiF6t QU88tiOL4, it i8 t&U O@lkhU Of 

tfiir office that tha State Pttrka BOW% Ma the authority to clcaept 

l redwtlon In prtioipkl and intorest and an extcn8lon oi due &ate 

of indebtednear and lien as Lt XMW ucista u9on aal% laad and the 

~curwa theFnfFoul. 

Tb818nd herelnvm~ 

p""" 

wd 

Bill 532 (Art. %ii'Ob, V.A.C.S. 

untler rutharity of Penate 

. Ssotlano 3 urd 4 provider 

*bee. 3. Plrojwttt ~l.uW~& ta woor%u~ce vith 

th%r lav 8re hereby declared to be *elf-llquld8tlag In 

ahamater8nppo*teQby uher&$ss otherthanby tamtlon. 

%a. 4. lwihiBgh6relB 8hell be aak8tmed 8~8 

oreat%ng a debt or btadLag the State of Tru8 in rry 

WY aCOpt PI to tb0 PlsdgS oi th8 FOPULUbl 68 hl'Oeinbefor. 88% forth: 

It 18 our OpiBhtI tNt so long a8 the llea oc iad8btedn8B8 

ia not %XkUreCr8Od ia either qu8lity Or aSOUAt, (UI Wt63miolk Vouhl be 

atthoriwd under Art. 607Ob, euthoririqg purohane of tlm land in 

qtl8StfOB. 

Ths title to the &ilWl in que8titvi he8 9B8S18d to ttxhl AW 

-8t8 in the Stete Parka Bourd, subject to be biVtl8teb upon foFealo8ure.oP exiclting Uen. T&W 93'0Vi81OlI IB Art. &HOb, 1irmitiSQ 

pu~~hnsc to tuo yesm tro?a date of bill, wo&l not prevent 8xtenalon of lien dU8 date bnd reduolq 0f~pFiBelQe~ and lnter%8t by 

lien holders. The Ttmtks Btate Pa%?lCa Baa* would b8 th8 pmper 

Party to enter into such ngretmmt u8 the pIlrty pciorrily llabla 

to psy enld lndebtednesa out of the 1ccszit4 , revenues snd incow r6- 

Ceived from the land in que6tlou. 

As ta vhether or not the l2@ OCMB m2eamd fmrp the
#### Bycomp, Inc., Respondent, v New York Racing Association, Inc., Appellant.

— Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Prior, Jr., J.), entered October 31, 1984 in Greene County, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant’s motion to strike the note of issue.

The instant breach of contract litigation was commenced by service of a summons and complaint on November 23, 1983. An answer containing a counterclaim was served on or about December 30, 1983. A reply to the counterclaim was received by defendant on or about January 5, 1984. A bill of particulars was served on defendant in early June 1984. Discovery of certain documents was thereafter completed and, on August 2, 1984, plaintiff filed a note of issue and statement of readiness.

Defendant moved to strike the note of issue and remove the case from the Trial Calendar, arguing that it had not had time to complete its discovery. Special Term denied defendant’s motion and set time limits within which defendant could complete an examination before trial and other discovery. The order also provided that the trial was in no event to be delayed beyond 60 days from the date of its decision. Defendant appeals from that order.

The general rule is that if a case is not ready for trial, the note of issue must be stricken *(Collins v Jamestown Mut. Ins. Co.,*32 AD2d 725). However, where a party has had ample time to complete disclosure, the motion can be denied *(Hutchins v Wand,*82 AD2d 928; *Kinney v Kinney,*81 AD2d 942). Here, defendant had adequate time to conduct disclosure and Special Term set reasonable time limits for completion of any desired discovery in its order. Defendant has failed to show that Special Term abused its discretion or that it has been prejudiced. The order should therefore be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

Main, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum. Main, J. (dissenting). I would respectfully dissent. I am unable to conclude, as does the majority, that defendant has had ample opportunity for discovery. We have long held that the statement of readiness rule (22 NYCRR 861.10) must be strictly enforced *(see, Didziulis v Callanan Indus.,*52 AD2d 669; *Cassidy v Kolonsky,*37 AD2d 880). While *896this motion is addressed to the court’s discretion and Special Term has provided for the discovery procedures to be completed within appropriate time restraints, nonetheless, failure to strike the note of issue effectively grants plaintiff a preference over pending cases properly noticed. No unusual factors are demonstrated warranting such action, and the motion to strike the note of issue should have been granted. I would therefore reverse Special Term’s order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          31,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,611)
<INVENTORY>                                        606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,213
<PP&E>                                          33,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,889)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 199,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         (81,809)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         (366)
<OTHER-SE>                                   (108,082)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (199,508)
<SALES>                                         64,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,690
<CGS>                                         (35,553)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (35,553)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (28,129)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,989
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,989
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.13


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         808,857
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  442,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,897,043
<PP&E>                                         622,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,914,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,467,677
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,458,000
<COMMON>                                    16,404,247
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,914,433
<SALES>                                         76,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             287,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,684,202)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,684,202)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,684,202)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
#### Vasilios Avramidis, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Jennie Avramidis, an Infant, Respondent, v City of Schenectady, Appellant.

—Main, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Shea, J.), entered December 10, 1984 in Schenectady County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Jennie Avramidis, an infant, injured her left foot when she stepped on a sharp object beneath the surface of the water in a swimming pool owned and operated by defendant. Plaintiff then commenced this action seeking damages for the injury sustained by the infant. Thereafter, defendant, arguing that it had no notice or knowledge of the alleged defect that caused the injury, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Special Term denied such motion, and this appeal ensued.

*956We affirm. Judgment in defendant’s favor is inappropriate at this early stage of the litigation since there exists a question of fact, *inter alia,*as to whether defendant may have breached its duty to reasonably inspect the pool for the presence of foreign objects likely to cause injury to patrons of the pool, thereby obviating the necessity of a showing that defendant had received notice of the alleged defect *(see,*4B Warren, Negligence in the New York Courts, Parks, § 1.02, at 432-433 [3d ed]).

Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.