alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
@inbook{1206186,
  author = {Karen Reczek},
  title = {Standards and Conformity Assessment (Chapter in the Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Third Edition)},
  year = {2022},
  month = {2022-11-14 05:11:00},
  publisher = {Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Third Edition, Elsevier Inc., Cambridge, MA},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934655},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823677-2.00148-3},
  language = {en},
}
@article{1212141,
  author = {W. Greg Miller and Thomas Keller and Jeffrey Budd and Jesper Johansen and Mauro Panteghini and Neil Greenberg and Vincent Delatour and Ferruccio Ceriotti and Robert Rej and Johanna Camara and Liesbet Deprez and Finlay MacKenzie and Alicia Lyle and Eline van der Hagen and Chris Burns and Pernille Fauskanger and Sverre Sandberg},
  title = {Recommendations for Setting a Criterion for Assessing Commutability of Secondary Calibrator Certified Reference Materials},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-11 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Clinical Chemistry},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936149},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvad104},
  language = {en},
}
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VIII - Employer Reporting System (ERS) Internet User Instructions

Chapter 5: Informational Notices to Employers (RESERVED)

1

This space is RESERVED for the future publication of Informational Notices to Employers in 

the Employer Reporting System (ERSNet) Internet User Instructions.
#### 57th Street Arts, LLC, Respondent-Appellant, v Calvary Baptist Church et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[852 NYS2d 840]

No opinion. Order filed. Concur-Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.
#### ANSCHUTZ v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.

No. 754.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Jan. 3, 1941.

R. J. Holmden, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

H. H. Booth and John H. Haley, both of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

OTIS, District Judge.

I am satisfied that within the rules governing federal procedure the petition in this case states a cause of action good as against a motion to dismiss. Certainly, however, the plaintiff may be required by a motion for a bill of particulars to make more definite in what respects he charges negligence against the defendant.

The petition to dismiss is overruled. Defendant is given ten days in which to plead further. So ordered.
#### In re Kevin J. LONG, Appellant.

No. 05-4429.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 15, 2006.

Decided Jan. 31, 2007.

Kevin J. Long (submitted), Chicago, IL, pro se.

Before POSNER, COFFEY, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

The Executive Committee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has issued an order barring Kevin Long from access to the William J. Campbell Library, which is the public library in the Dirksen Federal Courthouse, where the district court as well as this court is housed. The order has the effect of an injunction and is therefore appealable to this court — provided it is judicial rather than administrative in character. *In re Chapman,*328 F.3d 903, 904-05 (7th Cir.2003) (per curiam); *In re Palmisano,*70 F.3d 483, *484*(7th Cir.1995).

The committee determined that “Long had, on two separate occasions, approached female externs and asked them to model for him. Additionally, Mr. Long has consistently defied other library rules. He refuses to print his name upon entering the library; he has been found in the CALR section of the library (clearly marked ‘Court Personnel Only’); and he has entered the library through secure doors by following employees who have access to those entrances.” The committee’s order prohibits him from entering the library.

Long’s appeal does not question the Executive Committee’s authority to manage the library (nor need we consider its authority); rather he argues that by barring him from the library without notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the Executive Committee has deprived him of property without due process of law. We cannot consider the merits of the argument, because we do not have jurisdiction. The order excluding Long from the library is an administrative rather than a judicial order. No proceeding has been instituted against Long. The executive committee in *881excluding him was acting in a proprietary capacity, just like a restaurant that expels an unruly customer and forbids him to return. Such an action is not judicial; rather it is the kind of action that the person against whom it was taken might seek judicial redress for. Our jurisdiction is limited to review of judicial orders and of regulatory orders by administrative agencies.

Long’s appeal is therefore

Dismissed.
#### GETZY v. MILLER. WAINIO v. MILLER.

Civ. Nos. 26551, 26552.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Sept. 16, 1949.

Arthur Ritari, M. C. Harrison, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Burns Weston, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

*565JONES, Chief Judge.

These are actions for damages for personal injuries arising out of the same mishap, a collision involving a truck and an automobile in which plaintiffs were riding.

Defendant has filed a motion for a more definite statement as to the alleged acts of negligence of defendant and as to the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ injuries.

1. This Court has held many times that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, see Rule 8(a) and (e) and Form 9, Appendix of Forms, 28 U.S.C.A., it is not necessary to set forth alleged acts of negligence.

2. These complaints state only that plaintiffs sustained “serious and permanent bodily injuries.” It would not be a great hardship upon plaintiffs to set forth, withrout going into great detail, the general nature of their injuries. Form 9, liberal as it is, suggests such a general statement as to the nature of the injuries and a complaint should not fall below the minimum standard of Form 9.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ARGENTUM MEDICAL, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

GREGG SILVER, THOMAS MILLER,

Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants

v.

NOBLE BIOMATERIALS,

Defendant/Counterclaimant

DERMA SCIENCES, INC.,

Defendant/Counterclaimant

NOBLE FIBER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Third Party Defendant

______________________ 

2015-1057

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania in No. 3:08-cv-01305-

ARC, Senior Judge A. Richard Caputo.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 
 

THOMAS C. CRONIN, Cronin & Co., Ltd., Chicago, IL, 

argued for counterclaim defendants-appellants.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 July 15, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0120 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DALE NEWBURY,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 3 , 20 2 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 29 2021

03/29/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0120
----

----

| Registration      Statement Number | Description       |
|------------------------------------|-------------------|
| 33-26917                           | Form      S-8     |
| 33-33251                           | Form      S-8     |
| 33-47652                           | Form      S-8     |
| 33-58795                           | Form      S-8     |
| 33-65013                           | Form      S-8     |
| 333-03593                          | Form      S-8     |
| 333-51155                          | Form      S-8     |
| 333-51157                          | Form      S-8     |
| 333-35986                          | Form      S-8     |
| 333-113283                         | Form      S-8     |
| 333-115301                         | Form      S-8     |
| 333-138604                         | Form      S-3 ASR |
| 333-150805                         | Form      S-8     |

----
#### Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Appellant, v Village of Lake Success, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 731]

In a subrogation action, in effect, to recover the sum of $233,471.91 paid to the subrogor insured for property damage incurred on February 14, 2004, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J), dated *959October 11, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The statute of limitations was not tolled for the period between the defendant’s demand for a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and the hearing *(see Baez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*168 AD2d 529, 530 [1990], *affd*80 NY2d 571 [1992]; *Mignott v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*250 AD2d 165, 171 [1998]; *Cinqumani v County of Nassau,*28 AD3d 699 [2006]). Further, there is no basis to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to the defendant *(see Spirig v Evans,*26 AD3d 425 [2006]; *Bennett v Metro-North Commuter R.R.,*231 AD2d 662 [1996]). Ritter, J.E, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
July 21, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANTWAIN MAURICE BURKS, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00166-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED. We further order 

appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision 

certified below for observance.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.71

                                FIRST AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
              RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF GALEY & LORD, INC.

         WHEREAS, Galey & Lord, Inc. (the "Company") maintains The Retirement
Plan for Employees of Galey & Lord, Inc., most recently amended and restated as
of January 1, 2000 (the "Plan").

     WHEREAS, the Company now wishes to amend the Plan effective December 31,
2001 to freeze benefit accruals and participation in the Plan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

         I.   Article I: Definitions, Section 1.1, "Accrued Benefit", is
                         -----------                ---------------
amended, effective December 31, 2001 by adding the following sentence at the end
of this Section:

              "Effective December 31, 2001, all benefit accruals under this Plan
              are frozen, and no additional benefits shall accrue to any
              Participant in the Plan on or after that date."

         II.  Article II: Participation, Section 2.1, "Eligibility
                          -------------                -----------
Requirements," is amended, effective December 31, 2001, by adding the following
------------
sentence at the end of this Section:

              "Effective December 31, 2001, all future participation in the Plan
              is frozen, and no employee shall be eligible to participate in the
              Plan on or after that date."

         III. This First Amendment is effective as of December 31, 2001.

<PAGE>

     IV. Unless otherwise amended herein, the provisions of the Plan are hereby
ratified and confirmed.

     THIS AMENDMENT IS EXECUTED this 20th day of September, 2001.

                                          GALEY & LORD, INC.

                                          By: /s/ Arthur C. Wiener
                                          ---------------------------

                                        2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 781 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 781

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 9, 2020.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) directing the 
President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the 
use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran. 
All points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are 
waived. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The concurrent 
resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
provisions in the concurrent resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution, as 
amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
question except two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
    Sec. 2.  Section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not 
apply during the remainder of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress to a measure 
respecting Iran.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
..... ) ,-' .. 

- :1 

/ 

~~ Rn.t.ow-uP 

_:eN ~u:r:-(2__Y 

I Bo ?5\-;) -E.. 

:Su.-\.~ '?~( ~ 1=f: 8c; ~ 3-V\ 

38 q C\ s. \-\-. <H3 

,J~. ~~1\-x: 7SS2~ 

RECfE~V~O ~N COURT n~: t"!RtMII\IA'! 1 A~~~Alfj 

JUL ~ l ZQ; 

Afa@iAoo*, CU®rk 

t-lo t .:\--ry i~ -\-a \)~:\-->U' i~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~­

~ ~Y\ o_c_~wt~-~~ r~\M._~ ~ Vf'-~ 

~ -\\~ ~~~ ~_)\[" ~~~ ~ ~{\.Q.V~ ~l~-

~""' :L ~[;\A_~ .J<_,-/I .. Q./)', '9~\.rl ~ ~~~ ~ ' 

~ ~~ ~ ~-~f\~. :;Lt-.. CJJY\j ..stvi&Y\'t, 

~ ~-~-~~~~~~-~? 

_I.id ~-~;2_~~ ~ ~(~~ ~-~-~ 

~-~~ v.F~'\~, ~- ~, 

:L ~- ~ Rsx- 'tf!Mc ~ lV\ ~ \ ·rS\-~ ~~.
FOM1 715 

705.5 Social Security Certification 

Refer to RCM – SSC for Social Security Certification Procedure. 

FOM1 715 RRB District Office Role In SS Payments Revised Apr 11, 2017 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of John D. Justice, Appellant, v Andrea W. Evans, Chairwomen, New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 916]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered February 1, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The order denied the motion of petitioner for leave to renew.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see generally Matter of Davidson v Alexander,*67 AD3d 1219 [2009]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Smith, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with this Quarterly Report of United Nations Securities Association,
      Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Lord Dr. Masaaki Ikawa, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her knowledge,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            Such
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
                2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
                the period ending March 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                United Nations Securities Associations,
                Inc.




Dated:
      August 15, 2006








Lord
      Dr.
      Masaaki Ikawa


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Principal
      Financial Officer
AMKR 6.30.13 Ex 10.5




[Translation]


	
					
	 
	 
	Department Head
	Team Manager
	Team Member

	 
	 
	 
	 






Amendment to Kun-Mortgage Agreement
(Increase of Maximum Credit Amount)


Kun-Mortgagee:    The Korea Development Bank
Debtor:        Amkor Technology Korea, Inc.
Kun-Mortgagor:    Amkor Technology Korea, Inc.


Whereas the above mentioned parties entered into the Kun-Mortgage Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated July 2, 2012 on the properties described in the attachment and completed the following registrations of kun-mortgage submitted to the Registration Division of the Seoul Eastern District Court under the submission No. 39384 on July 4, 2012:


Incheon District Court, Geyang Registration Division 31399;
Incheon District Court, Northern Incheon Registration Division 42847; and
Gwangju District Court Registration Office 131319;


The said parties hereby agree to amend the terms of the Agreement as follows by an agreement between the parties:


Maximum Credit Amount:    USD 480,000,000.


Each provision of the existing Agreement shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Amendment to Kun-Mortgage Agreement. 


4. 29, 2013


	
			
	Creditor & Mortgagee:
	The Korea Development Bank
	 

	Address:
	16-3, Yoido-dong, Youngdeungpo-gu, Seoul
	 

	Proxy:
	Hyung-Jong Kim 
	 

	 
	(Handling Branch: Head Office Corporate Finance Department 1) 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Debtor:
	Amkor Technology Korea, Inc. (seal) 
	 

	Address:
	100, Amkor-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju
	 

	 
	Representative Director Joo-Ho Kim
	 

	 
	 
	Seal

	Mortgagor:
	Amkor Technology Korea, Inc. (seal)
	Compared by:

	Address:
	100, Amkor-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju
	 

	 
	Representative Director Joo-Ho Kim
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Lee, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Lee,*111 Ohio St.3d 361, 2006-Ohio-5849.]

(No. 2005-0855

Submitted October 17, 2006

Decided November 29, 2006.)

Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip D. Bogdanoff, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Walter J. Benson, for appellant.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Stahl,*111 Ohio St.3d 186, 2006-Ohio-5482, 855 N.E.2d 834.

Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
#### In the Matter of Luis Montes-Amaya, Respondent, v Suffolk County Board of Elections et al., Respondents, and Waldo Cabrera, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 320]

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition nominating Waldo Cabrera as the candidate of the Integrity Party for the public office of Member of the Assembly, 6th Assembly District, in a general election to be held on November 7, 2006, Waldo Cabrera appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated October 11, 2006, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and invalidated the nominating petition.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Service of process was properly effected pursuant to CPLR

*947308 (1) *(see Bossuk v Steinberg,*58 NY2d 916, 918 [1983]; *Matter of Cannuscio v Garfinkle,*307 AD2d 1003 [2003]).

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the third volume of the appellant’s nominating petition was not “filed” within the meaning of Election Law § 1-106 until it was marked by the United States Post Office (hereinafter the Post Office) as received, on August 23, 2006 *(see Matter of Hogan v Goodspeed,*196 AD2d 675 [1993]; *Matter of George v Van Keuren,*185 Misc 671 [1945]; *see also Matter of Bush v Salerno,*51 NY2d 95 [1980]). The Post Office’s notation that it received the mailing on August 23, 2006 was verifiable evidence of the date on which the third volume of the nominating petition was mailed *(see Estate of Wood v C.I.R.,*909 F2d 1155, 1161 [1990]). Because the last day to timely file nominating petitions was August 22, 2006, the filing of the third volume of the nominating petition was untimely and the signatures thereon were properly invalidated *(see*Election Law § 1-106). Florio, J.P, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
@article{1214936,
  author = {Ganga Neupane and Andrew Winchester and Nicolas Marquez Peraca and David Albin and Joel Duenow and Matthew Reese and Sujitra Pookpanratana and Susanna Thon and Behrang Hamadani},
  title = {Imaging local luminescence variations in CdSe0.1Te0.9 thin films grown by the colossal grain growth process.},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-04 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Cell Reports Physical Science},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936458},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101522},
  language = {en},
}
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 21, 2015

Order 

July 21, 2015

151663(172)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

ROBERT ANTHONY SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 151663

COA: 316224

Wayne CC: 12-009631-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing his reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on July 20, 2015, is accepted for 

filing.