alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(More)

No. 23-1 For Immediate Release

January 2023

RRB Names Director of Policy and Systems

The U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has named Randolph “Randy” 

Hayden as its Director of Policy and Systems, effective January 1, 2023.

In that position, Mr. Hayden will be responsible for developing and improving 

computer programs and systems, along with necessary forms, instructions, and 

processes, to calculate and pay benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and 

the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act while providing outstanding service to 

RRB customers. He will be responsible for managing about 55 analysts and staff in 

Policy and Systems. 

Mr. Hayden has held various senior analytical and supervisory positions over the 

course of his career at the RRB. At the time of his appointment, Mr. Hayden had 

served as the Chief of RRA Application and Calculation within Policy and Systems

since December 2015. He has worked in Policy and Systems since 1995, starting as a 

policy and systems analyst. He subsequently became a senior analyst in May 2007, and 

a supervisory analyst in June 2009. An RRB employee since June 1987, Mr. Hayden 

started out as an initial retirement claims examiner before being promoted to working 

on post-adjudicatory retirement claims. 

He graduated from Loyola University of Chicago in 1987 with a bachelor’s 

degree in biology, and from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1999 with a master’s 

degree in public administration. Mr. Hayden is a native of Chicago, born and raised on 

the southwest side, and currently resides on the north side of the city. He hails from a 

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

RRB News

844 North Rush Street Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275

RRB.gov

General Information: 877-772-5772

Public Affairs

Media Inquiries: opa@rrb.gov

312-751-4777
-2-

railroad family, as his late father retired from the Belt Railway Company of Chicago 

and a late uncle retired from the Santa Fe Railroad in New Mexico.

He replaces Kimberly Price, who retired in December 2021 after 31 years of 

RRB service.

# # #

An independent Federal agency headquartered in Chicago, the RRB pays about 

$13.5 billion a year in benefits under the Federal Railroad Retirement and Railroad 

Unemployment Insurance Acts covering the nation’s railroad workers and their 

families.
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1057 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to execute and carry 

out agreements concerning Colorado River Drought Contingency Management and Operations, 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, 
2 

†S 1057 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Colorado River 

3 Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. COLORADO RIVER BASIN DROUGHT CONTINGENCY 

5 PLANS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of law expressly addressing the operation of the appli8 cable Colorado River System reservoirs, immediately upon 

9 execution of the March 19, 2019, versions of the Agree10 ment Concerning Colorado River Drought Contingency 

11 Management and Operations and the agreements attached 

12 thereto as Attachments A1, A2, and B, by all of the non13 Federal parties thereto, the Secretary of the Interior shall, 

14 without delay, execute such agreements, and is directed 

15 and authorized to carry out the provisions of such agree16 ments and operate applicable Colorado River System res17 ervoirs accordingly. 

18 (b) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section shall— 

19 (1) be construed or interpreted as precedent for 

20 the litigation of, or as altering, affecting, or being 

21 deemed as a congressional determination regarding, 

22 the water rights of the United States, any Indian 

23 Tribe, band, or community, any State or political 

24 subdivision or district of a State, or any person; or 

25 (2) exempt the implementation of such agree26 ments and the operation of applicable Colorado 
3 

†S 1057 ES

1 River System reservoirs from any requirements of 

2 applicable Federal environmental laws. 

Passed the Senate April 8, 2019. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1057 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to execute 

Operations, and for other purposes. River Drought Contingency Management and and carry out agreements concerning Colorado
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CRIM. NO. lO-85l(DMC)

V.

THOMAS LEONARDIS ORDER MODIFYING

CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by defendant,

THOMAS LEONARDIS, through his attorney Michael N. Pedicini, Esq.,

in the presence of the United States of America, (Assistant U.S.

Attorney Anthony J. Mahajan appearing> for an Order modifying the

defendant’s conditions of release and the Court having considered

the moving papers and arguments of counsel and for good and

sufficient cause shown;

IT IS on this day of , 2012;

HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall be permitted to attend the

wedding of the daughter of Nicholas Atria at the Riverview Yacht

Club located Long Beach, Long Island, New York; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s conditions of release barring any

contact with individuals or entities of the New York or New Jersey

waterfronts be modified so as to permit the defendant to have

contact with those individuals who may be associated with the

Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 227 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2342
waterfront who are not witnesses in the pending matter and who have

initiated contact with defendant; and it is further

ORDERED that all other conditions of release heretofore

imposed shall remain in full force and effect until further Order

of this Court.

UNITED STATES JUDGE

Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 227 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2343
Attorneys for Defendants, Essex County Prosecutor’s Office and Justin Edwab,A,P.

Our File No, 3703.00022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RODNEY JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT,

CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX

COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE,

OFFICER VERON BRADBURY,

OFFICER ADAM BERGER, JUSTIN

EDWAB, A.P., JOHN DOES I-XII

Defendants.

Civil Action Number: 11-160

(PGS)(ES)

CONSENT ORDER VACATING

DEFAULT AND AFFORDING

DEFENDANTS ESSEX COUNTY

PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE AND

JUSTIN EDWAB, A.P.

TWENTY-ONE DAYS TO

ANSWER OR OTHERWISE

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT

Document Filed Electronically

THIS MATTER having been brought before this Court on application by

Post, Polak, Goodsell, MacNeil! & Strauchier, P.A., attorneys for defendants Essex

County Prosecutor’s Office and Justin Edwab, A.P. for an Order vacating default

and affording defendants Twenty-One (21) days to answer or otherwise respond to

(002 l42 1.1)
ORDERED:

That default against defendants Essex County Prosecutor’s

Office and Justin Edwab, A.P. is hereby VACATED;

2. That defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date

of this order to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s

Complaint; nd

3. That a copy of the within Order be served upon all counsel

within 5 days from the date hereof.

s/Claire C. Cecchi

C Cecc*

{0021$21 LI)
Is! Jeffrey T. Kampf

Jeffrey Karnpf, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff, Rodney JonesPOST, POLAK, 000DSELL, MacNEILL

& STRAUCHLER, P.A.

Is! Frederick B. Polak

Frederick B, Polak, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants, Essex CountyProsecutor’s Office and Justin Edwab, A.P.

(00214211.1)
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00029-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF L.A.

On Appeal from the County Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. M15-00051

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this accelerated appeal, L.A. complains of an order requiring the administration of 

psychoactive medication, following his commitment to Terrell State Hospital for a period not to 

exceed ninety days. In a companion case issued of even date herewith,1this Court determined 

that, because only one statutorily compliant medical certificate was on file at the time of the 

commitment hearing, the trial court erred in conducting the hearing. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY 

CODE ANN. § 574.009(d) (West 2010). We therefore reversed the trial court’s temporary inpatient 

mental health services order and rendered judgment ordering L.A.’s immediate release. 

In this case, L.A. complains of the order to administer psychoactive medication. The court 

may enter an order authorizing the administration of psychoactive medication if the patient is under 

“a court order to receive inpatient mental health services” and the trial court finds, by clear and 

convincing evidence, “that the patient lacks the capacity to make a decision regarding the 

administration of the proposed medication and treatment with the proposed medication is in the 

best interest of the patient.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.106(a), (a-1)(1) (West 

2010). Because we have concluded in our companion case that the trial court’s order requiring 

L.A. to receive temporary inpatient mental health services is invalid, the order authorizing 

administration of psychoactive medication is likewise invalid. See id. 

 

1The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of L.A., cause number 06-15-00028-CV.
3

We reverse the order for administration of psychoactive medication, effective immediately. 

Our mandate will issue immediately upon motion, should appropriate action not be taken in 

accordance with this opinion.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: July 6, 2015

Date Decided: July 17, 2015
#### NORTHWEST AIRLINES, Inc. v. GLENN L. MARTIN CO.

Civ. No. 26383.

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

Oct. 25, 1949.

*552M. C. Harrison, Cleveland, Ohio, Francis D. Butler, St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.

C. M. Horn, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action in which plaintiff alleges that defendant sold plaintiff five airplanes which were negligently manufactured and which after delivery became defective causing injury to plaintiff.

Defendant moves (1) that plaintiff’s complaint be made more definite and, (2) that plaintiff be required to state its claim with respect to each of the five planes involved in separate counts. The first motion is made under favor of Rule 12(e) and the second under Rule 10(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

Defendant requests that the several particulars it asks to be made more definite be treated as separate motions and a ruling be made on each. Under Rule 12 (e) a motion to make more definite and certain only is favored when the complaint is so vague or ambiguous that a responsive pleading cannot reasonably be framed. Form 9 is an illustration of a negligence complaint, and it has been stated by this court that Form 9 will be taken as a standard. Plaintiff’s complaint includes all the allegations found in Form 9, and, therefore, it seems adequate and is not so vague that defendant cannot frame a responsive pleading.

The first motion will be overruled.

Under Rule 10(b) separation of .claims into separate counts is mandatory only if more than one claim has been joined in a complaint and separation will facilitate clear presentation. Original Ballet Russe v. Ballet Theatre, 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 187.

I am of the opinion that only one claim is stated by plaintiff. True, five planes were involved, but it would appear that the purpose of the complaint is to claim damages arising out of a series of related negligent acts. In such a situation separate counts are not necessary. Chiavola v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 85.

But even if separate claims are stated, it does not seem essential, for clear presentation of the matters set forth, to *553have the claims stated separately. Defendant claims that separate counts will enable it to know if different defenses are required. This, in itself, is not a sufficient reason for granting the motion. Broomfield v. Doolittle, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 517. Another claim is that a lump sum verdict, if returned, will hinder defendant on appeal; but a verdict as provided for in Rule 49(a) and (b) would obviate such difficulty.

The second motion also will be overruled.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-536

Lower Tribunal No. 19-CA-7281

_____________________________

DOUGLAS HANNAH,

Appellant,

v.

MALK HOLDINGS, LLC,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.

Alane Laboda, Judge.

February 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Hannah appeals a final judgment as to attorneys’ fees and costs in 

favor of Malk Holdings, LLC.

1

 The parties agree that we must reverse and should 

contemporaneously issue the mandate here because we reversed the underlying civil 

theft judgment in Hannah v. Malk Holdings, LLC, 368 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 6th DCA 

1 This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this 

Court on January 1, 2023.
2

2023). Therefore, we reverse the final judgment and direct the Clerk of this Court 

to contemporaneously issue the mandate.

REVERSED; MANDATE TO ISSUE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY.

TRAVER, C.J., and WHITE and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Christopher D. Donovan, of Donovan Appellate Law, PLLC, Bonita Springs, for 

Appellant.

Jonathan B. Sbar, Andrea K. Holder, and Jodi L. Corrigan, of Rocke, McLean & 

Sbar, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
<PAGE>
                                EXHIBIT 10(a)(3)

Second Amendment to The O.M. Scott & Sons Company Excess Benefit Plan, effective
                             as of January 1, 1999




<PAGE>


                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                          THE O.M. SCOTT & SONS COMPANY
                               EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN


         WHEREAS, The Scotts Company (the "Company") sponsors The O.M. Scott &
Sons Company Excess Benefit Plan (the "Excess Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Excess Plan provides benefits which cannot be provided
under The Scotts Company Associates' Pension Plan (the "Pension Plan") due to
the limits in Code Sections 415 and 417(a)(17); and

         WHEREAS, the Pension Plan was frozen effective as of December 31, 1997;
and

         WHEREAS, the Company wants to amend the Excess Plan to clarify the
effect of the repeal of Code Section 415(e) and to provide additional benefits
to certain individuals; and

         NOW THEREFORE, effective as of January 1, 1999, the Excess Plan is
amended as follows:

1.       The definition of "Base Plan Limit" in Section 1 is amended by the
addition of the following sentence:

         Code Section 415 shall be applied as if the limitations of Code Section
         415(e), as in effect on December 31, 1999, continued to apply.

2.       Paragraph (b) of Section 3.1 is amended to provide:

         (b)      Richard D. Bergum, Robert L. Hughes, and William F. O'Neil (or
                  their Beneficiaries) shall each receive a benefit equal to:

                  (i)      the amount that would have been payable to the
                           individual (or his Beneficiary) under the Base Plan
                           assuming the individual is credited with service to
                           the date listed and without regard to the freeze of
                           the Base Plan as of December 31, 1997; less

                  (ii)     the amount paid under the Base Plan.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                    NAME                      DATE              ASSOCIATE NUMBER          SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
                    ----                      ----              ----------------          ----------------------
<S>                                           <C>               <C>                       <C>
                    Richard D. Bergum         12/31/98          Assoc. #                  SS #
                    Robert L. Hughes          11/30/99          Assoc. #                  SS #
                    William F. O'Neil         3/31/98           Assoc. #                  SS #
</TABLE>


<PAGE>



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the 20 day of DECEMBER, 1999.


                           THE SCOTTS COMPANY



                           By:  /s/ Hadia Lefavre
                               -------------------------------------------------
                                Hadia Lefavre, Senior Vice President --
                                Global Human Resources





















                                       2
----

----

|   | 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 operations of the Company      as of and for the period covered by theReport. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      Neil Martucci       |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Neil      Martucci           |   |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|   | May      15, 2009            |   |

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Periodic Financial Report**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned, John Saunders the Chief Executive Officer of Integrated ManagementInformation, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to hisknowledge:

 

(i)    theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(ii)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2008           |
|-----------------------------------------|
|                                    |
| /s/ John  Saunders                      |   |
| John  Saunders, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

LUANN DUNKINSON :

: 

: 3:10-cv-06489-FLW -LHG

v. : 

: Hearing Date: April 4, 2011

CITIGROUP INC. (d/b/a) : 

THD/CITIBANK USA, EXPERIAN, :

TRANSUNION, OXFORD :

COLLECTION AGENCY, INC. d/b/a :

OXFORD MANAGEMENT SERVICES, : O R D E R

ANTONIO LAMEIRAS, :

THIS MATTER having been presented to the Court by defendant Citibank 

(South Dakota), N.A. (incorrectly sued as Citigroup Inc., d/b/a THD/Citibank 

USA) (“Citibank”), by and through its counsel of record, for an order dismissing 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the Court having considered the motion papers, the 

opposition thereto, if any, the reply papers, if any, and any arguments of counsel, 

and for good cause shown:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Citibank’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and 

Plaintiff’s Complaint against Citibank is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH 

Case 3:10-cv-06489-FLW -LHG Document 16-2 Filed 03/07/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 98
2

PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Date: _________________________________________

THE HONORABLE FREDA L. WOLFSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-06489-FLW -LHG Document 16-2 Filed 03/07/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 99
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Robert C. McPherson, III, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Metals USA Holdings Corp.;
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |     |  |                                                                           
|------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 15, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/    ROBERT C.
MCPHERSON, III                                           
|                    |  |     |  | Robert C. McPherson, III
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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 14, 2021

Order 

Clerk

July 14, 2021

162250(23)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 162250

v COA: 354321 

Oakland CC: 2018-269358-FC

JAIME LYNN RIEGER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

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

for filing her reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before August 11, 2021.
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS   Document 31    Filed 07/06/11   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 187
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, on behalf of 

itself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

-vs.-

PETERSON’S NELNET, LLC,

Defendant.

3:11 CV 11 (TJB)

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on June 13, 2014, I caused to be filed a Notice of Motion for 

Preliminary Approval dated June 13, 2014 with the Clerk for the U.S. District Court for the 

District of New Jersey by ECF. The ECF system will send notification of such filing to all 

counsel of record.

Executed on June 13, 2014, at White Plains, New York.

/s/Aytan Y. Bellin

Aytan Y. Bellin

aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

P.O. Address

85 Miles Avenue

White Plains, NY 10606

Ph. (914) 358-5345

Fax: (212) 571-0284

Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 108-1 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1810