alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *583Guillermo Gonzalez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered August 6, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While the trial court submitted the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first and second degrees to the jury, the defendant contends that his request to charge criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree as a lesser included offense should have been granted. However, since the defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, any error was harmless *(see, People v Richette,*33 NY2d 42, 45-46; *cf., People v Green,*56 NY2d 427, 435-436).

The defendant’s other contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CEL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

CMGC Building Corp. 

Under Contract No. N40085-14-C-0013 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61270 

Pamela J. Mazza, Esq. 

Michelle E. Litteken, Esq. 

Timothy F. Valley, Esq. 

PilieroMazza PLLC 

Washington, DC 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Robert R. Kiepura, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER 

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter 

judgment in favor of appellant. 

It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties' stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a 

consent judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of 

$87,500. This amount is inclusive of interest. No further interest shall be paid. 

Dated: 26 January 2018 

(Signatures continued) 

Administrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61270, Appeal ofCMGC 

Building Corp., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1009 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1009

    To repeal the prohibition on the payment of interest on demand 
                               deposits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2001

  Mr. Toomey (for himself, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Ney, Ms. 
    Hooley of Oregon, Mrs. Roukema, and Ms. Capito) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal the prohibition on the payment of interest on demand 
                               deposits.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Business Checking Freedom Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. INTEREST-BEARING TRANSACTION ACCOUNTS AUTHORIZED.

    (a) Repeal of Prohibition on Payment of Interest on Demand 
Deposits.--
            (1) Federal reserve act.--Section 19(i) of the Federal 
        Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371a) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(i) [Repealed]''.
            (2) Home owners' loan act.--The first sentence of section 
        5(b)(1)(B) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 
        1464(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``savings association may 
        not--'' and all that follows through ``(ii) permit any'' and 
        inserting ``savings association may not permit any''.
            (3) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 18(g) of the 
        Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(g)) is amended to 
        read as follows:
    ``(g) [Repealed]''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YVETTE BAILEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES

INCORPORATED, a Washington

corporation; ALTAIR ADVANCED

INDUSTRIES INC, a Washington

corporation; ABC, INC. 1-10, defendant

corporation(s) whose name(s) is/are

unknown; FREDERICK KAISER; JANE

DOE KAISER, and the marital community

comprised thereof; GRACE BORSARI;

JOHN DOE BORSARI, and the marital

community comprised thereof, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-36002

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00727-JCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 16, 2019

Seattle, Washington

FILED

MAY 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: HAWKINS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,**

District Judge.

 

Appellant, Yvette Bailey, sued defendants for wrongful termination under

Washington law. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of

defendants, and appellant appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1291. We affirm.

1

Bailey alleges that she was terminated from her job as a senior international

buyer in retaliation for whistleblowing about tax fraud concerns. Defendants

argued that plaintiff was terminated because of an incident that occurred on a

business trip. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence at trial, the district court

granted judgment as a matter of law on multiple grounds.

In Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 685 P.2d 1081, 1088 (Wash. 1984),

Washington “recognize[d] a cause of action in tort for wrongful discharge if the

discharge of the employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy.” Id. at

1089. Washington has allowed wrongful discharge claims “where employees are

fired in retaliation for reporting employer misconduct, i.e., whistleblowing.”

Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 913 P.2d 377, 379 (Wash. 1996) (citing Dicomes

** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

1

 Bailey also moved for certification to the Washington Supreme Court on

two questions of Washington law (Dkt. 12). We deny her motion for certification.

2
v. State, 782 P.2d 1002, 1007 (Wash. 1989)). To prevail on a wrongful termination

claim, a plaintiff must prove that her protected activity was “a substantial factor

motivating the employer to discharge the employee.” Rickman v. Premera Blue

Cross, 358 P.3d 1153, 1160 (Wash. 2015). On the undisputed facts of this case,

where Bailey did exactly what she was instructed to do—to report to her superiors

in order to help the company avoid violating tax law—her whistleblower claim

fails.

AFFIRMED.

3
#### In the Matter of Charles E. Libby, Appellant. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center et al, Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondent hospital from terminating the petitioner’s admitting privileges, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated August 5, 1988, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner sought to prohibit the respondent hospital from terminating his admitting, privileges. However, he has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies afforded to him. Public Health Law § 2801-b was enacted to mitigate the harsh results of the common-law rule whereby the "physician’s continued professional association with a private hospital was within the unfettered discretion of the hospital’s administrators” *(Guibor v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp.,*46 NY2d 736, 737; *see also, Fried v Straussman,*41 NY2d 376, 380; *Matter of Fritz v Huntington Hosp.,*39 NY2d 339, 348). Public Health Law § 2801-b (2) sets forth the appropriate procedural framework whereby an aggrieved physician may invoke the jurisdiction of the Public Health Council when the governing body of a hospital terminates a physician’s privileges "without stating the reasons therefor, or if the reasons stated are unrelated to standards of patient care, patient welfare, the objectives of the institution or the character or competency of the applicant” (Public Health Law § 2801-b [1]). The petitioner’s challenge to the termination of his privileges is not limited to allegations that the hospital has failed to comply with its bylaws but alleges matters properly falling within the scope of administrative review envisioned in Public Health Law § 2801-b *(cf., Matter of Murphy v St. Agnes Hosp.,*107 AD2d 685, 689; *Chalasani v Neuman,*97 AD2d 806, *revd on other grounds*64 NY2d 879). As such, the petitioner was "obligated to present his claim of an improper practice, in the first instance, to the administrative body charged with the protection of these statutory rights” *(Guibor v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., supra,*at 738). Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7013 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Harriet Tubman Day 

as a Federal holiday, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2022 

Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. 

CARSON, Mr. DEUTCH, Ms. CLARKE of New York, and Ms. JACKSON

LEE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Harriet 

Tubman Day as a Federal holiday, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Harriet Tubman Day 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HARRIET TUBMAN DAY. 

7 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

8 amended by inserting after the item relating to Washing9 ton’s Birthday the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7013 IH

1 ‘‘Harriet Tubman Day.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 76

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2002, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 107–44 is further amended by striking
2

•HJ 76 EH

1 the date specified in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu

2 thereof ‘‘December 15, 2001’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 5,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 76

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes.
Exibit 99.1





Frontier Communications


3 High Ridge Park


Stamford, CT 06905


203.614.5600


www.frontier.com







Frontier Communications Corporation Declares Second-Quarter Dividend







STAMFORD, Conn., May 8, 2012 –Frontier Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: FTR) announced today that its Board of Directors has declared a regular quarterly cash dividend payment of $0.10 per share of common stock, payable on June 29, 2012 to holders of record of common stock at the close of business on June 8, 2012.








About Frontier Communications


Frontier Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: FTR) offers voice, broadband, satellite video, wireless Internet data access, data security solutions, bundled offerings, specialized bundles for residential customers, small businesses and home offices and advanced business communications for medium and large businesses in 27 states.  Frontier's approximately 15,500 employees are based entirely in the United States.  More information is available at www.frontier.com and www.frontier.com/ir.










INVESTOR CONTACT:


MEDIA CONTACT:Gregory Lundberg


Brigid SmithAssistant Treasurer, Investor Relations


AVP, Corp. Comm.(203) 614-5044


(203) 614-5042greg.lundberg@ftr.com


brigid.smith@ftr.com










###
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID POOLE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 02 3

- 0479

[ February 15, 2024 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nine t eenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie C ounty ; Lawrence M. Mirman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562009 CF 001995F

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine Austin, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, K UNTZ a nd A RTAU

, JJ.

, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00301

- CV

KYLEAH A. ZUMAYA APPELLANT

V.

BRIAN CHRISTOPHER SN OW APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF PARKER COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CIV

- 12

- 0992

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



### ME MORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On October 7, 2014, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that

payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s rec ord as

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P.

35.3(a)(2). We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

unless appellant, within ten days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s

record and pro vided this court with proof of payment.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s

record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want

of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex . R. App. P.

37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 30, 2014
#### Calvin W. McCUTCHEN; Isabelle McCutchen, his Wife; McCutchen-Simpson, Inc., a Florida Corporation; Calvin W. McCutchen & Company, a Corporation Doing Business in Dade County, Florida; Calvin Chemical Corporation, a Corporation Doing Business in Dade County, Florida, and Eugene McCutchen, Appellants, v. Helen M. McCUTCHEN, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

May 25, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 35.3



                         ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE


                   OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

In compliance with Section 3(a) of the Administration Agreement (the
"Agreement") among Nelnet Student Loan Trust 2006-2, as Issuer, Wells Fargo
Delaware Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee, Zions First National Bank, as
Indenture Trustee, and National Education Loan Network, Inc., as Administrator,
dated as of May 1, 2006, I, Terry J. Heimes, certify that:

        1.     A review of the activities of the Administrator and of its
               performance under the Agreement during the period from May 1,
               2006 through December 31, 2006 has been made under my
               supervision; and

        2.     Based on my knowledge of such review, the Administrator has
               fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under the
               Agreement during such period.


April 2, 2007


By:     /s/ TERRY J. HEIMES
        -------------------------------
        Terry J. Heimes
        Chief Financial Officer,
        Treasurer,
        National Education Loan Network, Inc.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30541

Conference Calendar

 

NELSON SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARK A. MARINO, Mr., I.D.B.;

FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 98-CV-1188-J

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

October 20, 1999

Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Nelson Smith, Louisiana prisoner # P-1, C19, seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), following the district court’s

certification that his appeal from the denial of his motion for

leave to file a civil-rights complaint was not taken in good

faith. 

Smith argues that the district court abused its discretion

in dismissing his complaint, that counsel handled the appeal from
No. 98-30541

-2-

his conviction in an inappropriate manner, as frivolous. Marino,

Smith’s court-appointed criminal attorney is not a state actor

for purposes of § 1983 liability. Polk County v. Dodson, 454

U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981); see also Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court

No. 3, 937 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988). The district court did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing Smith’s claims against

Marino as frivolous because he was not a state actor as required

for liability under § 1983. 

Smith’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, Smith’s IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is

DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Smith’s motion to appoint counsel

and supplement the record is also DENIED.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike

for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) as does the district court’s

dismissal as frivolous of the original complaint. We caution

Smith that he has already accrued two strikes and that once he

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED.
IA

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 123

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 15, 2002

Mr. YOUNG of Florida introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2003, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 107–229 is further amended by striking

4 the date specified in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu

5 thereof ‘‘November 22, 2002’’.

Æ
Exhibit 10.27
                                  -------------

                  1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan Certificate

                             ESCALADE, INCORPORATED
                             Incentive Stock Option

Escalade, Incorporated, an Indiana Corporation with its principal place of
business in Evansville, Indiana, hereby grants to the option grantee named below
an option to purchase, in accordance with, and subject to the terms and
restrictions of the Escalade, Incorporated 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan and
of this option, the number of shares of the Common Stock of Escalade,
Incorporated at the price set forth herein as follows:

Option grantee   ______________

Number of Shares on which Option
    is Granted ____________                Option Price per Share $___________

Date of Grant  ____________                Expiration of Option   ____________

Once vested, exercise rights remain in effect until the sooner of the expiration
date or 90 days following termination of employment.

This option shall be personal to the option grantee, and shall be non-assignable
and non-transferable otherwise than by will and by the law of descent and
distribution. In case of termination of employment, see Article (9) of the plan.

If the issue or transfer of the stock covered by this option may in the opinion
of Escalade, Incorporated conflict or be inconsistent with any applicable
Federal or State Securities law or regulation, the Company reserves the right to
refuse to transfer said stock until such conflict or inconsistence is resolved.

                                        ESCALADE, INCORPORATED
                                        By The Stock Option Committee

I hereby accept the above option to purchase shares of the Common Stock of
Escalade, Incorporated in accordance with and subject to the terms and
restrictions of the Escalade, Incorporated 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan,
with which I am familiar, and agree to be bound thereby and by the actions of
the Stock Option Committee and of the Board of Directors. I also agree that this
option and the Escalade, Incorporated 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan
constitute an agreement with Escalade, Incorporated and its subsidiaries in
accordance with the terms and provisions thereof. I agree to surrender this
option to the Treasurer of Escalade, Incorporated for cancellation or for
appropriate notation hereon upon exercise of this option in whole or in part, or
upon the happening of any other event which makes this option not exercisable
according to its terms.


Acceptance Date:                              Signature:

                                       60