alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered November 23, 2020 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00926-CV 

IN RE MILTON LEE TARVER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F98-02379-QU 

ORDER 

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Evans 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s October 20, 

2020 petition for writ of mandamus. We DENY AS MOOT all motions. 

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

 JUSTICE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

VINCENT PAUL RIZZOTTO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D19-300 and 4D19-301

[September 26, 2019]

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial 

Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

432018CF000771CFAXMX and 432018CF001341CFAXMX.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. 

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 27, 2023

NO. 03-22-00179-CV

Molly Spence, Appellant

v.

Matthew Davis, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

MODIFIED IN PART, AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED –

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on January 10, 2022. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s order but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the 

trial court’s order by deleting the words “and contiguous counties” from the first of the Exclusive 

Rights of Matthew Davis listed on page 4 of the order. The Court affirms the order as modified. 

The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

March 22, 2023 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics 

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Everybody 

Wins DC Event on March 23, 2023 

On March 23, 2023, the Everybody Wins DC, nonprofit organizations under 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code, will host an event at Planet Word Museum, on 925 13th St. NW, 

Washington, DC 20005, starting at 6:00 p.m. EWDC’s Read to Dream is an exclusive 

fundraising and social event that will bring the power of reading to thousands of children 

across the DC region. Event proceeds will support EWDC’s mentoring program, read-aloud 

activities, and free book distribution efforts. 

 Approximately, over 180 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity 

of views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and 

local government officials, representatives from industry, employees of federal agencies, 

academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all 

food and beverages, is $45 per person. EWDC is in control of the organizing, planning and 

invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange 

information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements 

of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties. 

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of EWDC, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or 

administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local 

ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. 

Adam F. Greenstone
#### Doe, on the Demise of Gardner, *v.*Vandewater.

*Tuesday, December*12.

A conveyance of land, certified to be acknowledged before a notary public of one county “under his hand and seal,” may be admitted to record in another county in which the land lies.

Such conveyance, if recorded, may be proved by the record book, when the person offering the evidence is not a party to the conveyance and has not the control of it.

APPEAL from the *Whitley*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— On the trial of an action of ejectment, the defendant produced the record of deeds for *Whitley*county, and offered to read therefrom, as evidence to the jury, the copy of a deed from the lessor of the plaintiff, conveying to a third person the land in controversy, which was situate in that county. The copy purported to -be the copy of a deed, acknowledged before a notary public of *Allen*county, “under his hand and seal. ” The evidence was objected to, but admitted by the Court. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

It is urged against the legality of the testimony, that the deed was not properly admitted to record in *Whitley*county, for the following reasons; first, because the notary did not certify that the seal affixed to the authentication of the acknowledgment of the deed was his “notarial seal;” and, secondly, because his official character was not attested by the clerk of the Circuit Court of *Allen*county, under the seal of that Court.-

These objections are without foundation. A notary public has the same power to take acknowledgment of deeds, which a justice of the peace possesses; “ and his certificate and attestation, with his official seal, shall be taken in all cases to be of equal verity and validity with the certificate, atiesta*7tion, and seal of the clerk of a Circuit Court.” R. S. 1838, pp. 420, 421. The seal, which the notary attached to his authentication of the acknowledgment of .the deed, and which he certified to be his seal, must be presumed to be his official or notarial seal; and his certificate and seal needed no support from the attestation and seal of the clerk of the Circuit Court, as they are placed by the statute on the same footing with these. The deed was properly admitted to record in *Whitley*county; and as the defendant was no party to, and cannot be presumed to have had the control of it, the record was admissible evidence without farther proof of the execution of the deed. *Bowser*v. Warren, 4 Blackf. 522.

*II. Cooper,*for the appellant.

W. *II. Coombs,*for the appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed at the costs of the lessor.
#### STATE v. LASSITER

No. 390P01

Case below: 137 N.C. App. 773

Petition by defendant pro se for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 16 August 2001. Justice Edmunds recused.
| **Particulars**                         | ** ** | **Country of incorporation** | ** ** | **2013 (%)** | ** ** | **2012 (%)** | ** ** | **2011 (%)** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------|------------|-------------------|------------|-------------------|------------|-------------------|------------|
| Sify Software Limited                   |       | India                                  |       | 100               |       | 100               |       | 100               |       |
| Hermit Projects Private Limited         |       | India                                  |       | 100               |       | 100               |       | -                 |       |
| Pace Info Com Park Private Limited      |       | India                                  |       | 100               |       | 100               |       | -                 |       |
| Sify Technologies (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. |       | Singapore                              |       | 100               |       | 100               |       | 100               |       |
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Louis Resto, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

[786 NYS2d 842]

Carpinello, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 13, 2003, which ruled that claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market.

The factual finding by the Workers’ Compensation Board that claimant, formerly employed as a caretaker for the New York City Housing Authority, voluntarily withdrew from the labor market by retiring is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Yannucci v Consolidated Freightways,*6 AD3d 945, 946 [2004]). Although claimant suffered from a 1988 work-related injury to his ankle for which he received benefits, the record supports the Board’s finding that his 1994 retirement at the age of 55 with 27 years of service was unrelated to this injury. Specifically, claimant continued to work for five years after his injury *(see Matter of Lombardi v Brooklyn Union Gas Co.,*306 AD2d 704, 705 [2003]), never filed for disability-related retirement *(see id.; Matter of Milby v Consolidated Edison,*304 AD2d 946, 948 [2003]) and was never medically advised to retire because of his injury *(see Matter of Lombardi v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., supra; Matter of Pikcilingis v Macy's,*209 AD2d 742, *742743 [1994]). Additionally, there is little evidence suggesting that the injury worsened over time to the extent that it caused him to retire *(see Matter of Coneys v New York City Dept. of Mental Health,*299 AD2d 602, 603 [2002]). Thus, despite some evidence suggesting that claimant’s injury may have contributed to his decision to retire, the Board’s contrary factual determination must nevertheless be upheld *(see Matter of Yannucci v Consolidated Freightways, supra; Matter of Coneys v New York City Dept. of Mental Health, supra).*

Peters, J.P., Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH LASCALA.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Robert Hothan, Respondent, v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority et al., Appellants.

[787 NYS2d 887]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J), entered April 11, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $1,607,500.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by delet*594ing the provision thereof awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum and substituting therefor a provision awarding interest at the rate of 4% per annum; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

Public Authorities Law § 1276 (5) provides that the “rate of interest to be paid by the authority upon any judgment for which it is liable shall not exceed four per centum per annum.” Therefore, the Supreme Court improperly set the rate of interest at 9% per annum.

The defendant’s contention regarding the deficiency in the Supreme Court’s charge as to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1144 was raised on a prior appeal before this Court *(see Hothan v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth.,*289 AD2d 448 [2001]). Under these circumstances, further review is barred by the doctrine of the law of the case *(see Wendy v Spector,*305 AD2d 403 [2003]; *MJD Constr. v Woodstock Lawn & Home*Maintenance, 299 AD2d 459 [2002]; *Duffy v Holt-Harris,*260 AD2d 595 [1999]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or without merit. Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
No. 14,351.

#### Clutter *v.*Riddle et al.

Bile op Eyceptions. — For bill of exceptions containing the evidence held to be properly in the record, see opinion.

Supreme Court.— *Weight of Evidence.*— -Where there is evidence tending to support the finding of the court, the Supreme Court will not reverse a judgment on the weight of the evidence.

From the Vigo Superior Court.

*B. E. Rhoads*and *E. F. Williams,*for appellant.

*S. B. Davis,*for appellees.

Berkshire, C. J.

This action rests upon a promissory note and an account to which is joined a proceeding in attachment.

We find some confusion in the record, but we think that final judgment was rendered in the main action, and in the ancillary proceeding also, on the 10th day of May, 1887. The appellant on the same day filed separate motions for a new trial, one in the main action and the other in the *501proceeding in attachment. On the 9th day of June following, the said motions were overruled, and the proper exceptions reserved, and sixty days time granted in which to file a bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions was filed within the time given, in which was properly embodied the long-hand report of the evidence furnished by the official reporter.

Filed June 26, 1890.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that the motion to dismiss the appeal should be overruled.

Upon the merits of the case the. record presents but one question : Is there sufficient evidence to support the court’s

finding in the ancillary proceeding?

The ground of attachment alleged in the affidavit is non-residence. We have carefully canvassed the evidence but feel that no good purpose would be subserved by stating the course of our deliberations in this opinion. The evidence relied upon by the appellee as it appears in the record, is not altogether clear and satisfactory, but we are not prepared to hold that it is not sufficient to sustain the finding of the court, and hence, as we have many times decided, we can not disturb the finding, though the evidence carries with it an impress of weakness.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2019-10-23 15:42:47","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"}],"value":"2019"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["AFRC","ARC","GRC","GSFC","HQ","JPL","JSC","KSC","LaRC","MSFC","NSSC","OGC","OIG","SSC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["2","10","8","26","58","7","30","21","6","7","2"," ","9","2"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["3","11","5","19","68","7","30","26","9","9","7"," ","7","4"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":[" ","3","4","17","15","2","16","1"," ","4","1"," ","8"," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2019","quarter":"Q4"}
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 00-60844

_____________________
REGINALD DWIGHT PARR Petitioner v. US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondents

_________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture

(99-0022)

_________________________________________________________________ September 5, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Substantial evidence in the record supports the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture that petitioner Reginald Dwight Parr wilfully violated the Animal Welfare Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159, and the regulations and standards issued thereunder, 9 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-3.142, eight times between April 9, 1997 and November 18, 1998. Further, we agree with the Secretary that2

such regulations and standards gave Parr sufficient notice for him to comply with the requirements of the Act. Accordingly, we DENY Parr’s petition for review and AFFIRM the decision of the Secretary.
#### Martin Iron & Construction Co., Respondent, v Grace Industries, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And Another Action.)

[788 NYS2d 166]

In an action to foreclose mechanics’ liens, the defendants Grace Industries, Inc., Seaboard Surety Company, and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance of St. Paul, Minnesota, appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated March 13, 2003, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff the sum of $422,964.60, and (2) so much of a judgment of the same court dated May 30, 2003, as is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principad sum of $422,964.60.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

A determination of a trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence or could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see A & S Trucking Serv. v New York State Thruway Auth.,*268 AD2d 493 [2000]; *Greenberg v Behlen,*220 AD2d 720 [1995]; *see also Mechwart v Mechwart,*292 AD2d 354 [2002]).

We find no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s finding that the defendant general contractor, Grace Industries, Inc. (hereinafter Grace), knew of the unauthorized subcontract between its subcontractor, the plaintiff Martin Iron & Construe*496tion Co. (hereinafter Martin), and Atlas-Gem Erectors Co., Inc. (hereinafter Atlas), and Atlas’s involvement in the rehabilitation of the elevated Gowanus Expressway, so as to constitute a waiver of Grace’s objection thereto *(see Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.,*3 NY2d 395, 403 [1957]; *Weaver v Acampora,*227 AD2d 727 [1996]; *Matter of Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.,*209 AD2d 1009 [1994]; *Safway Steel Prods, v Craft Architectural Metals Corp.,*183 AD2d 452 [1992]; *Expocorp v Hyatt Mgt. Corp. of N.Y.,*134 AD2d 234 [1987]). Further, the quantum meruit award to Martin for the work performed on its behalf by Atlas was supported by the credible evidence adduced at the trial *(see Moors v Hall,*143 AD2d 336, 337 [1988]). As the Supreme Court correctly determined, after Grace breached its subcontract with Martin, Martin was permitted to abandon any claim on or under the contract and sue in quantum meruit for the value of the work, labor, services, and materials furnished to Grace on its behalf *(see Paterno & Sons v Town of New Windsor,*43 AD2d 863, 864 [1974]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2


                               FOURTH AMENDMENT TO
                         CARRAMERICA REALTY CORPORATION
                      1997 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN


                  CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, a Maryland corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies as follows:

                  1. The Company deems it appropriate to execute this
certificate to evidence adoption of an amendment to its 1997 Stock Option and
Incentive Plan (the "Plan") that increased the number of shares of common stock
available for issuance pursuant to grants under the Plan from 7,200,000 to
10,000,000 (the "Amendment").

                  2. The Board of Directors of the Company adopted the
Amendment, determined that the Amendment should be submitted to the Company's
stockholders for approval, and directed that the Amendment be submitted to the
stockholders for approval at the next annual meeting of stockholders.

                  3. The Amendment was submitted to the stockholders for
approval at the annual meeting of stockholders of the Company held on May 6,
1999, and was approved by the stockholders.

                  4. Section 4 of the Plan therefore has been amended, effective
as of May 6, 1999, and now reads as follows:

                 "4. STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

                  Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 16 hereof, the
number of shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan shall be
10,000,000. Stock issued or to be issued under the Plan shall be authorized but
unissued shares. If any shares covered by a Grant are not purchased or are
forfeited, or if a Grant otherwise terminates without delivery of any Stock
subject thereto, then the number of shares of Stock counted against the
aggregate number of shares available under the Plan with respect to such Grant
shall, to the extent of any such forfeiture or termination, again be available
for making Grants under the Plan."

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this certificate to
be signed by the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, as of
May 6, 1999.

                                                CarrAmerica Realty Corporation


                                                By: /s/ Linda A. Madrid
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    Linda A. Madrid
                                                    Managing Director

Attest:   /s/ Ann Marie Pulsch
          ------------------------
          Ann Marie Pulsch
          Assistant Secretary