alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lillian Lynch, Respondent, v Rockland County Department of Social Services of New York, Appellant. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

— Levine, J.

Claimant was employed as a typist for the Rockland County Department of Social Services. On May 8, 1981, she and coworkers were moved to the second floor of her employer’s offices while renovations of the building were taking place. She had a preexisting arthritic condition which, however, had only resulted in a loss of five work days in the preceding *2Vz*years. It rained extensively immediately following this move. Due to the condition of the roof and room ceiling, large quantities of water leaked into claimant’s work place and water collected in puddles on the floor. Claimant experienced an aggravation of her arthritic condition, which her physician linked to the dampness to which she was exposed. That June, at her request and upon the written advice of her physician, she was moved to another room, the ceiling of which did not leak. However, during September 1981, a month she described as being unseasonably cold, claimant was exposed to drafts of cold air from a broken window in her office at a time when the building was unheated. In the next several months, although the building was heated, the window was not repaired and dampness continued because of leaks and collection of water in the hallway of the building. As a result of all of the foregoing conditions, claimant suffered recurrent, totally disabling episodes of arthritis in May and September 1981 and January 1982, finally leading to surgery and the termination of her employment. She submitted medical evidence establishing the requisite causal relationship.

Contrary to her employer’s position on this appeal, the *431Workers’ Compensation Board could properly find that claimant suffered a compensable accidental injury on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing. The seriously adverse climatic conditions to which claimant was subjected at her office could reasonably be considered a " 'special increase and unusual hazard * * * identified in space and time’ ” *(Matter of Dotola v Hill,*257 App Div 870, 871, *lv denied*281 NY 675, 885). The "repeated trauma” of that exposure causing the aggravation of her illness satisfies the "concept of time-definiteness required of an accident” *(Matter of Middleton v Coxsackie Correctional Facility,*38 NY2d 130, 135). Moreover, the several onsets of severe aggravation, each characterized by medical experts as a "flare-up” and elsewhere in the record as an "attack” of her arthritis, wherein the swelling of her extremities were described by a coemployee as so severe so as to appear "almost grotesque”, also can be considered sufficiently time-definite results to satisfy the requirements of the concept of accident *(see, Matter of Middleton v Coxsackie Correctional Facility, supra; Matter of Pessel v Macy & Co.,*40 AD2d 746, *affd*33 NY2d 721; *Matter of Greensmith v Franklin Natl. Bank,*21 AD2d 576, 577-578, *affd*16 NY2d 973).

Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Levine, JJ., concur.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned President of the Company hereby 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Joan KatzeffPresidentAugust 14, 2007
#### SHAKEPROOF ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS DIVISION OF ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, and Hang Zhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2007-1038.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 16, 2007.

*1002David J. Levine, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was Raymond Paretzky.

Michael D. Panzera, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantappellee. On the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, and David S. Silverbrand, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were John D. Mclnerney, Chief Counsel, Michele D. Lynch, Senior Counsel, and Hardeep K. Josan, Attorney International, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Emily Lawson, White *&*Case LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With her on the brief was Adams C. Lee. Of counsel was Jay Charles Campbell.

Before MAYER and LINN, Circuit Judges and ROBERTSON, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable James Robertson, District Judge, United States District Court of the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0232 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0232

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (15763/3/2005 - C6-0087/2006 - 2004/0217(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 298 E , 08/12/2006 P. 0176 - 0202 *

P6_TA(2006)0232

Medicinal products for paediatric use ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (15763/3/2005 — C6-0087/2006 — 2004/0217(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (15763/3/2005 — C6-0087/2006),

- having regard to its position at first reading [1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0599) [2],

- having regard to the amended Commission proposal (COM(2005)0577) [2],

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0171/2006),

- having regard to the Commission statement which is annexed to this legislative resolution and which will be published together with the legislative act in the Official Journal,

1. Approves the common position as amended;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Texts adopted, 7.9.2005, P6_TA(2005)0331.

[2] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.1

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
OF ECLIPSYS CORPORATION

The Amended and Restated 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan) of
Eclipsys Corporation is hereby amended as follows (all capitalized terms used
and not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such
terms in the Plan):

1.     The following new subsection (g) shall be added to the end of Section 5 of
the Plan:



| |  |  | (g) In no event shall any Option be repriced to a lower
exercise price at any time during the term of such Option
(other than adjustments for stock splits, stock dividends,
recapitalizations and similar events as provided in the
documents governing such Option), without the prior
affirmative vote of a majority of outstanding shares of
voting stock of the Company present at a stockholders
meeting in person or by proxy and entitled to vote thereon.
For this purpose, Options shall be deemed to be repriced
if they are exchanged for or replaced with a new Option or
other Award with a lower exercise or purchase price per
share, or if they are cancelled and regranted with a lower
exercise price. Any amendment or repeal of this provision
shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of
outstanding shares of voting stock of the Company present at
a stockholders meeting in person or by proxy and entitled
to vote thereon.
| |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.     Except as aforesaid, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.



| | Adopted by the Board of Directors on April 17, 2003.
| | ----------------------------------------------------
Case 3:14-cv-01210-PA Document 28-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 2 

RICKY ALLEN SMITH 

Plaintiff, 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Civ. No. 3:14-cv-01210-PA 

V. ORDER TO PAY EAJA FEES 

COMMISSIONER 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

Panner, Judge: 

Based on the stipulation of the parties, and pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

28 U.S.C. § 2412, $9,291.91 is awarded to Plaintiff in care of his attorney, Nancy J. 

Meserow, and the check for EAJA fees shall be made payable to Nancy J. Meserow, 

based upon Plaintiffs assignment of these amounts to Plaintiffs attorney Nancy J. 

Meserow, after the satisfaction of Plaintiffs debts, if any, under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 

S. Ct. 2521 (201 O); and in addition, Plaintiff is awarded $9.00 in postage expenses 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and $6.00 in photocopying costs pursuant to 

Order to Pay EAJA fees 3:14 CV -01694-SI Page 1 

Case 3:14-cv-01210-PA Document 30 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:14-cv-01210-PA Document 28-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 2 

28 U.S.C. § 1920, also payable after the satisfaction of Plaintiffs debts, if any, under 

Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010). Any check for costs and expenses shall be 

made payable to Nancy J. Meserow; and any checks issued for both costs and EAJA 

fees shall be mailed to Plaintiff's counsel, Nancy J. Meserow, at her office: 

Law Office of Nancy J. Meserow: 

7540 S.W. 5 lst Ave. 

Portland, OR 

97219 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this -7 day o~ 

United States District Court Judge 

Order to Pay EAJA fees 3:14 CV -01694-SI Page 2 

Case 3:14-cv-01210-PA Document 30 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.59   ***Text Omitted and Filed SeparatelyConfidential Treatment
RequestedUnder 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4)
and240.24b-2(b)(1)
 
 BIOTECNOL SAPedro de Noronha PissarraTagusParkEdificio Inovacao 4, N° 809 2780-920OEIRASPORTUGALParis, May 18, 2004
   
   
 Milestones ref :
    
    Initial Calendar
    
    Actual CalendarT5P4
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T6 P2
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T6P3
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T6P4
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T7P2
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T7P3
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T7P4
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T9P1
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T9P2
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T10P1
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T10P2
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]T1 OP2 (2nd part)
    
    [...***...]
    
    [...***...]
 Please sign and return one original copy of this letter to acknowledge your agreement.On behalf of IDM
    
    On behalf of Biotecnol/s/ Jean-Loup Rome-Lemonne
    
    /s/ Pedro de Noronha PissarraPresident & CEO
    
    CEO
 
 *
    
    Confidential Treatment Requestedunder 17 C.F.R. §§200.80(b)(4)and240.24b-2(b)(1)
#### In the Matter of Kernan Library Office Group, Inc., Appellant, v Office of General Services of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

— Mikoll, J.

Four bids for library furniture were received in response to a bid proposal issued by respondent Office of General Services (OGS). The two lowest bids were rejected for failure to con*426form to the specifications contained in the bid proposal. The third lowest bid was that of petitioner and the fourth lowest bid was that of respondent Nickerson Corporation (Nickerson). The actual price difference between the two bids was not $22,000, as first appeared, but $13,764.65. Following receipt of a notice that the contract was awarded to Nickerson, petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the contract and to direct that the contract be awarded to it. Petitioner claimed that the rejection of its bid was without a rational basis because, although its samples were at variance with the detailed bid specifications, the variations were insignificant. Special Term rejected petitioner’s arguments and dismissed the petition, giving rise to this appeal by petitioner.

We reject petitioner’s arguments that it was error for Special Term to dismiss the petition without a hearing and that the determination was arbitrary. The facts demonstrate that a rational basis existed for the rejection of petitioner’s bid and Special Term properly declined to interfere with the award of the contract to Nickerson. The record revealed that there were substantial departures from the contract specifications in petitioner’s bid. The contract called for a card catalogue cabinet having a one-inch top and solid construction. The cabinet offered by petitioner was of an open, "slot type” construction and had a top of only %-inch thickness, a difference of 13%. The chairs in the contract were to have a backrest 12 inches in height, but petitioner’s chairs had only a 10-inch high backrest, a difference of 17%. Thus, the differences were not minor but substantial. The dismissal was not arbitrary and, therefore, there must be an affirmance *(see, Matter of Anchor Equip. Co. v State of New York, Off. of Gen. Servs.,*66 AD2d 987; *Matter of Bortle v Tofany,*42 AD2d 1007).

Finally, Special Term did not err in dismissing the petition on the submissions without a hearing on this record *(see, Matter of Brereton & Assoc, v Regan,*94 AD2d 886, 887). We have examined petitioner’s other contentions of error and find them unpersuasive.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### BELL, Appellant, v. WEBB, Supervisor, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 20, 1896.)

Application of Robert Bell for a writ of mandamus against Lee B. Webb, as supervisor of the town of Orange, Schuyler county.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131111 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131111 

 COA: 243439 

Wayne CC: 02-000492-01

WILLIAM A. WILLIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for a new trial. In the circumstances of 

this case, the defendant was denied his due process right to a fair trial when the circuit 

court refused to admit the complete statement the defendant made to the first police 

officer at the scene. 

WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I dissent and would deny leave to appeal because defendant has suffered no 

injustice. 

t0926 

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. 

September 29, 2006 

 Clerk
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0554 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0554

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the draft Council Decision amending the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities as regards the language arrangements, in order to include Bulgarian and Romanian among the languages of cases as laid down in the Rules of Procedure (15712/2006 - C6-0434/2006 - 2006/0813(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 317 E , 23/12/2006 P. 0368 - 0369 *

20061223

P6_TA(2006)0554

Inclusion of Bulgarian and Romanian among the languages of procedure for the Court of Justice *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the draft Council Decision amending the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities as regards the language arrangements, in order to include Bulgarian and Romanian among the languages of cases as laid down in the Rules of Procedure (15712/2006 — C6-0434/2006 — 2006/0813(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council draft (15712/2006),

- having regard to Article 245 (2) of the EC Treaty and Article 160(2) of the EAEC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0434/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0463/2006);

1. Approves the draft Council decision;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the text submitted for consultation substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

--------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sam Kraynek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge,
this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;

5. The small business issuers
other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing the Equivalent functions);

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                   |  |                                     
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2008
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/ Sam Kraynek                     
|                   |  | Sam Kraynek, Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Mapama Corp., Appellant, v New York City Loft Board et al., Respondents, et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 668]-

*786Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered March 16, 2011, denying the petition to annul respondent New York City Loft Board’s determination, dated May 20, 2010, which denied petitioner’s application for an extension of time to legalize loft units for residential occupancy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination had a rational basis. The request petitioner made before the deadline expired contained numerous procedural defects pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01 (b), including petitioner’s failure to complete the application form prescribed by respondent (subd [b] [4]). Moreover, the application it made thereafter, although submitted on the proper form, was untimely, since it was filed in December 2009, long after the May 1, 2007 deadline it sought to extend (29 RCNY 2-01 [b] [1]). The parties’ stipulation of settlement required petitioner, if it applied for an extension, to comply with 29 RCNY 2-01 (b). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the December 2009 application did not constitute an amendment to an extension application pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01 (b) (4), since there was no application pending when it was made. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ. [Prior Case History: 30 Misc 3d 1234(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 50355(U).]