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
 Houston, Texas
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Houston, Texas People & Locations







Benjamin  Arenkiel

(Ben)                                                                (PhD)
                        Houston, Texas

                        




                        
                        Nutrition Scientist
                        Phone: (713) 798-1960
                        
                        
                        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
#### Alexander Komolov et al., Appellants-Respondents, v David Segal et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[947 NYS2d 14]

Appeals from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered November 7, 2011, and amended order, same court and Justice, entered December 19, 2011, insofar as said orders granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, deemed an appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered December 29, 2011, and so considered, said judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated and causes of action one through fifteen reinstated. The foregoing orders, insofar as they denied, sub silentio, defendants’ request for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendants’ appeal from the judgment unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Dismissal of this action on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel, with the informal directive that plaintiffs seek relief to amend their pleadings by motion to renew before the court that presided over a prior action commenced by plaintiffs, was error. The dismissal of the prior action should have been without prejudice since the claims in that action were dismissed for pleading deficiencies and not on the merits *(see Avins v Federation Empl. & Guidance Serv., Inc.,*67 AD3d 505 [2009]). While judicial economy and the discouragement of forum shopping would otherwise warrant dismissal of this action, since the prior action was dismissed with no indication that the dismissal was without prejudice or not on the merits, this action is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel *{id.).*Collateral estoppel does, however, bar plaintiffs’ sixteenth cause of action alleging breach of contract in connection with the sale of a condominium since that claim was dismissed in the prior action for non-compliance with the statute of frauds.

The three-year statute of limitations applicable to the conver*514sion claims *(see*CPLR 214 [3]), was tolled when plaintiffs timely commenced this action within six months of the termination of the prior action *(see*CPLR 205 [a]).

Defendants have not shown that the two actions commenced by plaintiffs are frivolous, or were brought solely to harass. Thus, there is no basis for us to find that the motion court’s denial of defendants’ request for sanctions constituted an improvident exercise of discretion *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1], [2]; *Levy v Carol Mgt. Corp.,*260 AD2d 27, 33-34 [1999]). Further, there is no evidence that plaintiffs engaged in a history of vexatious, frivolous litigation that warrants enjoining them from commencing further litigation on the instant claims without prior court approval *(see Matter of Sud v Sud,*227 AD2d 319 [1996]). Defendants’ appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as defendants are not aggrieved thereby (CPLR 5511). Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
• • 

FILED 10 f'lAY '1615:29 USDC·ORE 

AO 442 (Rev. OIJ09) Amit W1m11t 

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT 

United States of America 

v. 

MICHAEL RAY EMRY 

Defendant 

forthe /~~tr-C57:J~-/4/£'.?6-.J 

District of Oregon 

• 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 6:16-1'\'\ j - SD-Jl<.. 

ARREST WARRANT ORIGINAL 

To: Any authorized law enforcement officer 

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

(nt111te of penan to be arruled) MICHAEL RAY EMRY _.;.;...;..;;:..;..~~;;..;.;...=.;.~--------------------~ 

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

Cl Indictment Cl Superseding Indictment Cl Infonnation Cl Superseding Infonnation ~ Complaint 

Cl Probation Violation Petition Cl Supervised Release Violation Petition Cl Violation Notice CJ Order of the Court 

This offense is briefly described as follows: 

Unlawful Possession of a Machine Gun not registered to him In the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record in 

violation of Tiiie 26 United States Code Sections 5841, 5861 (d) and 5871 

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm with an Obliterated Serial Number In violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 

922(k) 

Date: '5 - <.... · ~<:>\ l..o 

City and state: Eugene, Oregon 

Return 

This warrant was recej.ved on (d/Ju) _S~..;;..6-+-_I _{; __ , and the person was arrested on (dlJu) ________ _ 

at{<lq-'-J ~" IJ"''/J OR... /) j} 

Dato: >!Cf I j {, --..J~r.::z_~=-"A!T'U=lln-ig-o.flb-=-r-·.r-.rigna-llln-----

I PrinUd name and tiJ/e 

Case 6:16-mj-00056-JR Document 5 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES




<TABLE>
<S>                                     <C>                                  <C>
Name                                     Jurisdiction of Incorporation or     Other Name under which
                                         Organization                         Business is Conducted
                                         -------------                        ---------
U.S. Rubber Reclaiming, Inc.             Indiana                              None
Pyramid Coach, Inc.                      Tennessee                            None
Champion Trailer, Inc.                   Indiana                              None
Danzer Corporation                       New York                             None
(formerly Danzer Industries, Inc.)
United Expressline, Inc.                 Indiana                              Southwest Expressline
Obsidian Leasing Company, Inc.           Mississippi                          None

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7915** 

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT , Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:12

- cv - 0 2931

- PJM )

Submitted : February 21, 201 3 Decided: February 26, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Damon Emanuel Elliott , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Damon Emanuel Elliott appeals the district court ’ s
order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Elliott leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Elliott v. United

States , No. 8:12

- cv - 0 2931

- PJM (D. Md. Oct. 22 , 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
10.2


 


 






    	 



    	 



    

  


 






    	 



    	 



    

  


 






    	 



    	 



    

  


 






    	 



    	 



    

  


  





	GRANTOR:	 
	 	 
	PECK ELECTRIC CO.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Jeffrey Peck	 
	 	Jeffrey Peck, President of Peck Electric Co.
# C_2009281EN.01000601.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5512 — Electrabel/E.ON)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 281/02

On 16 October 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5512. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5512. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<PAGE>
<TABLE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         BRISTOL RETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC.

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
<CAPTION>

                                                                                       INCEPTION
                                                                YEAR ENDED        (APRIL 3, 1996) TO
                                                               DECEMBER 31,          DECEMBER 31,
                                                                   1997                  1996
                                                             ---------------       ---------------
<S>                                                          <C>                   <C>

     BASIC LOSS PER SHARE

          Net loss                                           $   (4,968,607)       $     (106,625)
                                                             ===============       ===============

          Weighted average number of common shares
            outstanding during the period
                                                                  5,198,156             3,319,738
                                                             ===============       ===============

          Basic loss per share                               $         (.96)       $         (.03)
                                                             ===============       ===============


     DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE

          Net loss                                           $   (4,968,607)       $     (106,625)
                                                             ===============       ===============

          Weighted average number of common shares
            outstanding during the period                         5,198,156             3,319,738
                                                             ===============       ===============

          Effect of stock options and warrants
            treated as common stock equivalents
            under the treasury stock method                              --                    --
                                                             ---------------       ---------------

               Total shares                                       5,198,156             3,319,738
                                                             ===============       ===============

          Diluted loss per share                             $         (.96)       $         (.03)
                                                             ===============       ===============


</TABLE>
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1884 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 206 West Commercial Street in East Rochester, New York, as the ‘‘Officer Daryl R. Pierson Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1884 EH

1 SECTION 1. OFFICER DARYL R. PIERSON MEMORIAL POST 

2 OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 206 West Commercial Street in 

5 East Rochester, New York, shall be known and designated 

6 as the ‘‘Officer Daryl R. Pierson Memorial Post Office 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Officer Daryl R. Pier12 son Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1884 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. ficer Daryl R. Pierson Memorial Post Office Street in East Rochester, New York, as the ‘‘Of- al Service located at 206 West Commercial
_____________ No. 96-1357SD

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of South Dakota. * Robbie Lee Mason, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: July 11, 1996 Filed: July 18, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, LAY, and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Robbie Lee Mason appeals his drug-related guidelines sentence. Mason contends the district court improperly enhanced Mason's sentence because he was a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). We disagree. Havin g review edthe record, we conclude the district court's decision abou t Mason's role in the offense is not clearly erron eous. Mason also contends the di strict court improperly refused to depart downward from th e guidelines because his criminal history category significantl y overrepresents the se riousness of Mason's criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 4A 1.3. Again, we disagree. The district court's refusal to depar t downwardis not reviewable on appeal. We thus affirm Mason's sentence . See 8th Cir. R. 47B.A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Christian  Upchurch
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Welder
                        Phone: (785) 712-3682
                        
                        
                        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
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-47355 and 333-93401 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-10149,
333-10153, 333-10157, 333-11037, 333-13187, 333-56607, 333-67619, 333-80775,
333-40530, 333-46512 and 333-46514 on Form S-8 of The Dial Corporation of our
report dated January 24, 2002, except for Note 12 as to which the date is March
27, 2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Dial Corporation
for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                          /s/ Deloitte & Touche
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Deloitte & Touche
                                          Phoenix, Arizona
                                          March 27, 2002
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 Appian,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004,  as  filed  with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, F.
Britton McConkie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/ F. BRITTON MC CONKIE
----------------------------
F. Britton McConkie
Chief Executive Officer
July 13, 2005

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
#### John Catalfamo, Appellant, v Flushing National Bank et al., Respondents, and Carat Contracting Co., Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Dra-Gam Construction Company et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

*625It appears from the brief submitted by the plaintiffs counsel that the plaintiff died on November 13, 1984. It further appears that no substitution has taken place as required by CPLR 1015. Under these circumstances, the order appealed from is a nullity and this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant appeal (see, *Muth v*Benjamin, 109 AD2d 736).

We note however, that were the appeal properly before us, we would affirm for reasons stated by Trial Term. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### Lisa Rachlin, Respondent, v 34th Street Partnership, Inc., Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 113]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 6, 2012, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment *691as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when she tripped over a foot-long metal bar forming the base of a barrier used by defendant at its taxi stand. Defendant failed to established prima facie that the base was both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. Plaintiff testified that the accident happened at night and that the area was poorly lit. Defendant’s claim that *Broodie v Gibco Enters., Ltd.*(67 AD3d 418 [2009] ) stands for the proposition that plaintiff’s testimony about lighting conditions is insufficient to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment is misplaced. In *Broodie,*the defendant established affirmatively that the lighting was present, operative at the time of the accident, and adequate. In this case, defendant offered no evidence on lighting conditions at the time of the accident. Thus, plaintiffs testimony was not even rebutted. Furthermore, the base of the barrier protruded into the middle of the sidewalk and appeared similar in color to the sidewalk. Photographs corroborated this account *(see Saretsky v 85 Kenmare Realty Corp.,*85 AD3d 89 [2011]). Defendant also failed to show that it did not create the hazardous condition. Indeed, defendant’s employee testified that defendant was responsible for installing and maintaining the metal barriers *(see Salvador v New York Botanical Garden,*74 AD3d 540 [2010] ). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.