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
 Soil Management and Sugarbeet Research: Fort Collins, CO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Fort Collins, Colorado Center for Agricultural Resources Research Soil Management and Sugarbeet Research People & Locations







Joshua  Mott
                        Soil Management and Sugarbeet Research

                        




                        
                        POST DOC
                        Phone: (970) 492-7201
                        
                        
                        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
addedumform.htm


    
       


      
        
           


        

        
           


          
            
EXHIBIT 10.2

        

        
           


        

      

 

    
      ADDENDUM
TO

       

      SENIOR EXECUTIVE TERMINATION
BENEFITS AGREEMENT

       

      


      


      THIS _________ ADDENDUM TO SENIOR EXECUTIVE
TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENT (this “Addendum”) dated as of __________,
200__ is made and entered into by and between Darling International Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and ____________ (the
“Executive”).

       

      


      W I T N E S S E T H:

       

      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive
entered into that certain Senior Executive Termination Benefits Agreement dated
as of __________, 200__ (the “Agreement”); and

      


      WHEREAS,
the Agreement terminates on __________, 200__; and

      


      WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive desire to extend the term of the Agreement for an
additional one year period;

      


      NOW, THEREFORE, for and in
consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Executive do hereby agree to the
following:

       

      


      A G R E E M E N T:

       

      1.       Amendment of Termination
Date.  The termination date set forth in Section 9 of the
Agreement shall be extended by a period of one year so that the Agreement shall
now terminate on __________, 200__.

      


      2.       Defined
Terms.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Addendum
shall have the same meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

      


      3.       No Other
Amendment.  Only the termination provision of the Agreement has
been modified and extended by this Addendum.  All other terms and
conditions of the Agreement are ratified and remain in full force and
effect.

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the
Executive have executed this Addendum on the dates set forth below.

       

      


      
        	
                 

              	
                 COMPANY:  

              	 	
                 EXECUTIVE:

              
	 	 	 	 
	
              	

                 DARLING
      INTERNATIONAL INC.
 	 	 


      

       

      
        	 	
                  By:

              	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 	
                  Name:

              	 
      	 
      	
                [Name
      of Executive]

              
	 	
                  Title:

              	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 	
                  Date
      of Signing:

              	 
      	
                Date
      of Signing:
#### Todd Kenneth HOROB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-35622.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 25, 2011.

Todd Kenneth Horob, USP — U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.

*1002Before: 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 **

Todd Kenneth Horob, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under *Bivens v. Six Unknonm Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), challenging the validity of his conviction and the conditions of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Horob’s action because his allegations against the United States regarding his trial necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Horob has not shown that his conviction has been invalidated. *See Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (§ 1983 complaint in which “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”); *Martin v. Sias,*88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir.1996) (applying *Heck*to actions brought against federal actors).

We do not consider arguments, including those regarding access to the law library, made for the first time on appeal. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999). Issues not raised in the opening brief, including those regarding conditions of confinement, are deemed waived. *Id.*

Horob’s 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REGISTRANT'S
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND FOR THE QUARTER THEN
ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,596
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                       121
<INVENTORY>                                      2,776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,099
<PP&E>                                          16,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,645
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,639
<SALES>                                          7,167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,167
<CGS>                                            3,049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    41
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,167
<INCOME-TAX>                                       823
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,344
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,344
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
Order entered September 1 7 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 14
- 01153
- CV PHOENIX ENERGY, INC. AND JOSEPH J. RING, III, Appellant s V.
BREITLING ROYALTIES CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial D istrict Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 11432 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ petition for interlocutory appeal and motion to stay trial

. We ORDER appellee to file any response no later than September 22, 2014.

/s/ ELIZABET H LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
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
 Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU): Geneva, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Diversity Collections
                        Apple
                                    Brassica
                                    Buckwheat
                                    Celery
                                    Grape
                                    Hemp
                                    Onion
                                    Radish
                                    Squash
                                    Tart Cherry
                                    Tomato
                                    Other Seed CropsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Geneva, New York Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU) People & Locations







H Todd  Holleran
                        Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU)

                        




                        
                        Agricultural Science Research Technician (Plants)
                        Phone: (315) 787-2233
                        
                        
                        Fax: (315) 787-2216(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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Quarterly Report of American Commerce Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank D. Puissegur, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director 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 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: October 13, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Frank D. Puissegur                                                               
|                       |  |  |  | Frank D. Puissegur Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1495

To amend section 7703 of title 5, United States Code, to strengthen the

ability of the Office of Personnel Management to obtain judicial review

to protect the merit system, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 9, 1997

Mr. LEVIN (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To amend section 7703 of title 5, United States Code, to

strengthen the ability of the Office of Personnel Management to obtain judicial review to protect the merit system, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. MERIT SYSTEM JUDICIAL REVIEW.

4 Section 7703 of title 5, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘provision

7 of law,’’ and inserting ‘‘provision of law except sub8 section (d),’’; and
2

•S 1495 IS

1 (2) in subsection (d)—

2 (A) in the first sentence, by inserting after

3 ‘‘filing’’ the following: ‘‘, within 60 days after

4 the date the Director received notice of the final

5 order or decision of the Board,’’; and

6 (B) by striking the last sentence.

7 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect

9 on the date of enactment of this Act, and apply to any

10 suit, action, or other administrative or judicial proceeding

11 pending on such date or commenced on or after such date.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES R. CRUZ, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 734 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Unpublished Memorandum and

Order of the Superior Court at No.

1728 MDA 2016 entered on September 29, 2017, affirming the PCRA Order of the Centre County

Court of Common Pleas at No. CP

- 14

- CR

- 0001246

- 1993 entered on September 14, 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is VACATED, as is the January 5, 2017

order of the Centre County Court of Common Pleas dismissing the untimely Petitioner’s

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 46. The case

is REMANDED to the PCRA Centre County Court of Common Pleas for reconsideration

in light of this Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 173 A.3d 617 (Pa.

2017).
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DONALD STIDHEM,

2:15-cv-00379-TC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

LORINDA SCHWARTZ, Chaplain, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 

98), and the matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the 

file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 
2 –ORDER

Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude the report is 

correct.1

Magistrate Judge Coffin’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 98) is adopted in 

full. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 76) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of January, 2018.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

 

1

The Court declines to consider arguments or evidence not presented to Judge Coffin.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

STEVEN PAUL HEITZMAN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COLETTE PETERS; RICK 

ANGELOZZI; DAVID HAMMONDS; 

PHILLIP JACKSON; KEITH 

HELLING; OREGON DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, and 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

SERVICES, RISK MANAGEMENT, 

Defendants. 

FANNER, District Judge: 

1:13-cv-00730-CL 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and 

Recommendation (#62), and the matter is now before this court. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Although no 

1 - ORDER 

Case 1:13-cv-00730-CL Document 65 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 2
objections have been filed, this court reviews the legal 

principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Go to & Co., Ltd., 700 F. 2d 

1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983) . 

I have given this matter de novo review. I find no error. ... 

Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation (#62). 

Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#42) is GRANTED. All 

othei pending motions are DENIED as moot. Judgment is for 

Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this day of May, 2014. 

OWEN M. PANNER 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

2 - ORDER 

Case 1:13-cv-00730-CL Document 65 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 2
#### Elyas Bokhour, Respondent, v GTI Retail Holdings, Inc., Defendant, and Theodore Ketsoglou et al., Appellants.

[941 NYS2d 675]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease, the defendants Theodore Ketsoglou and Andrew Seabury appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeStefano, J.), entered November 7, 2011, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action” *(Sokol v Leader,*74 AD3d 1180, 1180-1181 [2010]; *see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). “In considering such a motion, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” *(Sokol v Leader,*74 AD3d at 1181 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Nonnon v City of New York,*9 NY3d 825, 827 [2007]; *Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). “ ‘Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus’ ” *(Sokol v Leader,*74 AD3d at 1181, quoting *EBC I,*Inc. *v Goldman, Sachs & Co.,*5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]). However, “[a] court is, of course, permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a *683motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7)” *(Sokol v Leader, 74*AD3d at 1181; *see*CPLR 3211 [c]). “If the court considers evidentiary material, the criterion then becomes ‘whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one’ ” *(Sokol v Leader, 74*AD3d at 1181-1182, quoting *Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d at 275). “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” *(Sokol v Leader,*74 AD3d at 1182 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Lawrence v Graubard Miller,*11 NY3d 588, 595 [2008]; *Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633, 636 [1976]). “Indeed, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) must be denied ‘unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it’ ” *(Sokol v Leader, 74*AD3d at 1182, quoting *Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d at 275).

Here, the appellants, who submitted evidentiary material in support of their motion, failed to demonstrate that any fact alleged in the complaint was undisputedly not a fact at all *(see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d at 275; *Sokol v Leader,*74 AD3d at 1182). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Lights, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bourgeois, J.), rendered July 14, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court’s determination on the issue of the voluntariness of the statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials was neither erroneous as a matter of law nor against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, *mot to amend remittitur denied*26 NY2d 845, *cert denied*400 US 851). The fact that the Assistant District Attorney who took the videotaped statement knew the defendant was on medication does not render that statement involuntary, particularly where there is no indication that he knew that the defendant had not taken his medication that day or that the lack of medication had any effect upon the defendant’s ability to give a knowing and intelligent waiver of his *Miranda*rights.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and assuming the jury credited the prosecution witnesses and gave the prosecution’s evidence the full weight that might reasonably be accorded it, the defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.