alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anna Kossarska-Goetz, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 820]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 20, 2012, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not available for employment.

Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits in 2009. On December 26, 2010, claimant traveled to Poland to care for her mother. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately determined that claimant was ineligible to collect benefits effective December 26, 2010 on the ground that she was unavailable for employment as of that date. Claimant was also charged with a recoverable overpayment and a forfeiture penalty was imposed. Claimant now appeals and we affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits effective December 26, 2010 because she was unavailable for employment. The record reflects that claimant left the country on that date and remained in Poland until September 2011. Claimant had received an unemployment insurance handbook advising her that she must be ready, willing and able to work and that she would be ineligible for benefits if she were “not prepared to take a job immediately.” Further, the handbook states that claimant must contact the Department of Labor to discuss her eligibility for benefits if she ever left her normal labor market and a failure to do so could result in a denial of benefits. Claimant admittedly did not contact the Department concerning her leaving the country. Her contention that she was available to start a job immediately raised a question of fact for *1241the Board to resolve and since that finding is supported by substantial evidence, it may not be disturbed (see *Matter of Monereau [Roberts],*98 AD2d 827, 828 [1983]; *Matter of Troiano [Ross],*53 AD2d 788, 788 [1976]; *Matter of Lepicier [Levine],*51 AD2d 620, 620 [1976]). Further, claimant admitted that she probably received but did not read the requirements in the handbook regarding availability for employment prior to certifying for benefits during the time that she was in Poland. Under these circumstances, the Board’s factual conclusion that claimant made willful misrepresentations in order to receive benefits is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see *generally Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor],*107 AD3d 1287, 1288 [2013]; *Matter of Sferlazza [Nassau Community Coll.*— Commissioner *of Labor],*69 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2010]).

Peters, EJ., Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.210



$358,000.00                                                  New York, New York
                                                               November 5, 2001


        FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby
unconditionally PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor,
New York, NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may
designate from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of Three
Hundred Fifty Eight Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($358,000.00), together with
interest on the unpaid principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from
time to time from the date hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate
of interest plus 3.0%, or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be
less.

        The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

        Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

        Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

        Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

        This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

        All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

        This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.



                                        Wilshire Technologies, Inc.



                                        By:  /s/  Kathleen Terry
                                             ----------------------------------
                                        Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
Incident Behavior

Common Responsibilities

Volunteers and Single Resource Casual Hires

Inappropriate Behavior:

It is extremely important that inappropriate behavior be recognized and dealt with promptly. 

Inappropriate behavior is all forms of harassment including sexual and racial harassment. 

Harassment in any form will not be tolerated. When you observe or hear of inappropriate behavior 

you should:

• Inform and educate subordinates of their rights and responsibilities.

o Tell the harasser to stop the offensive conduct.

• Provide support to the victim.

• Report the incident to your supervisor and the individuals’ supervisor, if the behavior continues. 

Disciplinary action may be necessary.

• Develop appropriate corrective measures.

• Document inappropriate behavior and report it to the appropriate incident manager or agency 

official.

• While working in and around private property, recognize and respect all private property.

Drugs and Alcohol:

• Non-prescription unlawful drugs and alcohol are not permitted at the incident.

• Use of medical marijuana on incidents is prohibited.

• Possession or use of these substances will result in disciplinary action.

• During off-incident rest periods, personnel are responsible for proper conduct and maintenance of 

fitness for duty. Drug or alcohol abuse resulting in unfitness for duty will result in disciplinary 

action.

• Be a positive role model. Do not be involved with drug or alcohol abuse.

• Report any observed drug or alcohol abuse to your supervisor.

I have read and I understand the above described incident behavior responsibilities:

Signature Date

PMS 935-1 (English) (rev. August 2012)
Scenario: Contractors Misbehaving 

Janice, a female helitack crewmember complains to her coworker, Bob, about an incident that 

happened the previous night. She had an argument with an employee of a contract helicopter 

company because he was asking her to go to the bar with him. It appeared the mechanic had 

been drinking; although he was not drunk. This wasn’t the first time he had asked her out and 

Janice had repeatedly told him she wasn’t interested. 

Discussion Questions: 

Question #1: What should Bob do?

Question #2: Are our contractors required to follow the same standards of conduct as BLM 

employees?
#### Annis Recardo LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. I.B. LOVELL; D.D. Gronau, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-6149.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 29, 2009.

Annis Recardo Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Annis Recardo Lloyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action raising allegations of defamation. We have reviewed the record *259and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Lloyd v. Lovell,*No. 5:08-ct-03174-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2009). We deny as moot Lloyd’s motion to compel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
No. 899.

#### Davis et al. *v.*Iowa.

March 2, 1942.

*Messrs. H. C. Harper*and *Carlos W. Goliz*for petitioners. *Mr. John E. Mulroney*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Iowa denied.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES EUGENE WATTS

No. 449P05

ORDER

The Attorney General’s petition for discretionary review is allowed, pursuant to our general supervisory authority under Article IV, Section 12 of the Constitution of North Carolina, for the limited purpose of (1) vacating that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion ordering remand to the trial court for resentencing and (2) remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, -S.E.2d — (2006). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of December, 2006.

s/Timmons-Goodson. J. For the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         198,248
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,495,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    635,812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,198,346
<PP&E>                                       6,651,823
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,936,508)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,111,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,387,740
<BONDS>                                        895,297
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,900,635
<COMMON>                                     5,933,226
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,145,544)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,111,693
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,934,009
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,270,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (56,095)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,243
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,243
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,243
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 53766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,326]


Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Truck Plant; Dearborn, MI; Notice of 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated September 18, 2009, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on 
August 14, 2009. The Notice of Determination was published in the 
Federal Register on September 22, 2009 (74 FR 48302).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of Ford F Series pickups and Lincoln 
Mark LT sports-utility pickups did not contribute importantly to worker 
separations at the subject firm. The investigation revealed that the 
subject firm did not shift production of Ford F Series pickups and 
Lincoln Mark LT sports-utility pickups to foreign countries during the 
period under investigation.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that 
employment at the subject firm was negatively impacted by a shift in 
production of pickups from the subject firm to South Africa, Thailand, 
Mexico and Canada. The petitioner also alleged that imports of directly 
competitive products with Ford F Series pickups contributed importantly 
to the decline in sales at the subject facility.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of September 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-25159 Filed 10-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 54083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25368]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION


Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on 
the Electronic Records Archives (ACERA). The committee serves as a 
deliberative body to advise the Archivist of the United States, on 
technical, mission, and service issues related to the Electronic 
Records Archives (ERA). This includes, but is not limited to, advising 
and making recommendations to the Archivist on issues related to the 
development, implementation and use of the ERA system.

DATES: November 4-5, 2009, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20408-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

    <bullet> Opening Remarks;
    <bullet> Approval of Minutes;
    <bullet> Committee Updates;
    <bullet> Activities Reports;
    <bullet> Adjournment.
    This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space 
limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of 
individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Electronic 
Records Archives Program at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#513423307f21233e3623303c113f3023307f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ceabbcafe0bebca1a9bcafa38ea0afbcafe0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>. This meeting will be 
recorded for transcription purposes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Morphy, Assistant Archivist for 
Information Services, (301) 837-1992.

    Dated: October 15, 2009.
Mary Ann Hadyka,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-25368 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Mark A. Licciardi, Individually and as a City of Rochester Firefighter, Appellant, v City of Rochester et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 817]

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered June 11, 2012. The order denied the motion of plaintiff for leave to renew or reargue the motion of defendant Susan Walz, individually and as Vice Principal of Northside Elementary School in the Fairport School District, to dismiss the complaint against her and seeking to compel disclosure from Walz.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the order insofar as it denied leave to reargue is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for leave to renew or reargue the motion of defendant Susan Walz, individually and as Vice Principal of Northside Elementary School in the Fairport School District, to dismiss the complaint against her and seeking to compel disclosure *1287from Walz. Plaintiff offered no new facts in support of that part of the motion seeking leave to renew or reargue, but merely argued that Supreme Court had misapprehended the law and therefore reached the wrong conclusion with respect to the prior motion. That part of the motion, therefore, was in fact only a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appeal-able *(see Mugabo v City of Buffalo,*94 AD3d 1577, 1577 [2012]). Inasmuch as the complaint against Walz had been dismissed, the court properly denied as moot that part of the motion seeking to compel disclosure from her *(see Kinney & Kinsella, Inc. v NEI Fashions, LLC,*85 AD3d 514, 515 [2011]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to

§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc., the
Company, on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2009, (the Report), I, Catherine M. Davidson, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                             
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------
|Date: December 18, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    CATHERINE M. DAVIDSON
|                        |  |  |  | Catherine M. Davidson       
|                        |  |  |  | Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.02





Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Sandston Corporation (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Daniel J. DormanName:
                Daniel
      J. DormanTitle:
                President
      and ChiefExecutive Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)Date:
                March
      25, 2010




The
foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, (ii) will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it
by reference.





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 required
by Section 906, has been provided to Sandston Corporation and will be retained
by Sandston Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.