alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael S. Horwitz et al., Appellants, v 1025 Fifth Avenue, Inc., Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 5]

*249Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered April 14, 2005, which awarded defendant cooperative corporation legal fees and costs in the amount of $68,885.78, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, defendant’s postpleading application for attorneys’ fees denied, and the judgment vacated.

It is settled that the interpretation of the provisions of a lease is governed by the same rules of construction applicable to other agreements *(Matter of Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, Ill. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*283 AD2d 284, 288 [2001]; *Star Nissan v Frishwasser,*253 AD2d 491, 492 [1998]), and in those instances where the intent of the parties is clear and unambiguous from the language employed on the face of the agreement, the interpretation of the document is a matter of law solely for the court *(W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157, 162-163 [1990]; *New York Overnight Partners v Gordon,*217 AD2d 20, 24 [1995], *affd*88 NY2d 716 [1996]). Further, New York public policy disfavors any award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a litigation *(Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak,*69 NY2d 1, 5 [1986] [“the rule is based upon the high priority accorded free access to the courts and a desire to avoid placing barriers in the way of those desiring judicial redress of wrongs”]; *see also Gottlieb v Such,*293 AD2d 267, 268 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 606 [2002]), and a provision in an agreement allowing the recovery of attorneys’ fees that are “incidents of litigation” should be strictly construed *(id.*at 268 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; *see also Murphy v Vivian Realty Co.,*199 AD2d 192 [1993]).

The lease agreement herein provides, in pertinent part, that “if the lessee shall at any time be in default hereinunder, or if the lessor shall institute an action . . . against the lessee based upon such default, the lessee will reimburse the lessor for the expense of attorneys’ fees . . . .”

Plaintiffs, however, have never been found in default of the lease by either this Court or Supreme Court. Indeed, Supreme Court’s June 19, 2003 decision and order specifically found that plaintiffs were not in default of the lease, and that the cooperative board, as of the time of that order, had not formally acted to find plaintiffs in default. This Court’s subsequent decision and order dated May 27, 2004 *(see Horwitz v 1025 Fifth Ave., Inc.,*7 AD3d 461, 461 [2004]), left unaffectéd that part of the order of Supreme Court which found that the notices to cure *250and terminate were facially defective, and issued a declaration “in favor of defendant that it is entitled to enforce its house rules with respect to the removal of awnings.” Such declaration, however, contrary to Supreme Court’s finding, does not equate to a judicial finding of default. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40425 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENDRICK BENFORD,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:94-CR-12

- - - - - - - - - -

June 27, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Kendrick Benford appeals his sentence following his guilty

plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to

distribute cocaine. He argues on appeal: (1) that the district

court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact

regarding the amount of cocaine attributable to him and (2) that

the evidence in the presentence investigation report was

insufficient for the court to find that he was involved with more
No. 95-40425

-2-

that 1.5 kilograms of cocaine. We have reviewed the arguments of

the parties and the record on appeal and find no reversible

error.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2010179EN.01004701.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/47

---

Action brought on 27 April 2010 — BVR v OHIM — Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppen Österreich)

(Case T-197/10)

(2010/C 179/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken eV (BVR) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rinke, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Austria Leasing GmbH (Frankfurt, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2010 (Case R 248/2009-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2010 (Case R 248/2009-1);

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Austria Leasing GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppen Österreich’, in respect of services in Classes 35, 36 and 37.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BVR.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: inter alia, a figurative mark registered in Germany which contains the word element ‘Raiffeisen’, in respect of services in Classes 36, 39 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 596 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for direct payment 

to physician assistants under the Medicare program for certain services 

furnished by such physician assistants. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2019 

Mr. BARRASSO (for himself and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for direct payment to physician assistants under the 

Medicare program for certain services furnished by such 

physician assistants. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DIRECT MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR SERVICES 

4 FURNISHED BY PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1832(a)(2)(B) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)(B)) is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following new clause: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 596 IS

1 ‘‘(v) services of a physician assistant 

2 but only if no facility or other provider 

3 charges or is paid any amounts with re4 spect to the furnishing of such services;’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to services fur7 nished on or after July 1, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
8 de septiembre de 2005 Página 1 de 1 

Pie de trinchera o pie de inmersión 

Spanish translation of "Trench foot or Immersion foot" (www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/trenchfoot.asp)

 ¿Qué es el pie de trinchera?

El pie de trinchera, también conocido como pie de inmersión, se presenta cuando los pies han estado 

mojados por mucho tiempo. Esta afección puede ser muy dolorosa, pero hay formas de prevenirla y 

tratarla. 

 

¿Cuáles son los síntomas del pie de trinchera?

Los síntomas del pie de trinchera incluyen sensación de hormigueo y picazón, dolor, hinchazón, piel fría y 

con manchas, entumecimiento y picor o sensación de pesadez en los pies. El pie puede quedar enrojecido, 

seco y adolorido después de que se caliente; pueden formarse ampollas; y la piel y el tejido pueden morir 

y desprenderse. En casos graves, el pie de trinchera que se deja desatendido puede afectar los dedos, los 

talones o todo el pie. 

¿Cómo se previene y se trata el pie de trinchera?

En la medida de lo posible, eleve los pies y déjelos secar al aire, y cámbiese los zapatos y medias mojadas 

por unos que estén secos para prevenir la aparición del pie de trinchera.

El tratamiento del pie de trinchera es similar al del congelamiento por frío. Tome las siguientes medidas: 

• Lávese y séquese bien los pies.

• Póngase medias limpias y secas todos los días.

• Trate la parte afectada remojándola en agua tibia (entre 102° y 110° F / 38.8° y 43.3° C) o 

aplicándose compresas tibias durante aproximadamente 5 minutos.

http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000801-d000900/d000848/d000848.html--time

• No se ponga medias para dormir o descansar.

•Consiga asistencia médica lo antes posible.

Si tiene heridas en los pies, éstos pueden estar más propensos a infección. Examínese los pies por lo 

menos una vez al día para detectar cualquier infección o empeoramiento de los síntomas.

Para más información, visite www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters, o llame a los CDC al 

(800) CDC-INFO (inglés y español) o al (888) -232-6348 (TTY).
10/08/10 1 of 1 

B&V E-16 

PNM Response to EPA Question from Joe Kordzi, via email, dated 

September 29, 2010 

Question: 

“PNM agreed to identify any significant costs not included in previous estimates 

(PNM).” 

Response: 

The following is a preliminary list of the potential, significant differences from the 

original cost estimates developed for the June 2007 BART submittal. 

 Impact of escalation/de-escalation since May 2007 when the cost estimates were 

developed. (Changes to labor cost, equipment costs, commodities costs, etc) 

 Impact of the auxiliary power limitations at the San Juan Generating Station –The 

original BART estimates did not include any costs for an upgrade to the auxiliary 

power systems that will be needed to address the increased loads resulting from 

the addition of SCR and associated equipment. The SCR results in additional 

parasitic load at the site due to the additional fan power needed to overcome the 

pressure drop associated with the SCR and to provide additional power for 

ancillary equipment needed to operate the SCR. In the initial 2007 estimate, 

PNM expected the existing auxiliary power to be sufficient. However, now that 

the consent decree AQC equipment is installed, the current auxiliary power 

system is not sufficient to power the additional loads that would result from 

adding SCR and associated equipment. 

 Impacts of lead and asbestos abatement required during the SCR and associated 

equipment installation. 

PNM is currently in the process of assessing these impacts.
### §326. Maintenance of printing office in Washington, D.C.

When so specified in appropriation Acts, the National Weather Service is authorized to maintain a printing office in the city of Washington for the printing of weather maps, bulletins, circulars, forms, and other publications: Provided, That no printing shall be done by the National Weather Service which could be done at the Government Publishing Office without impairing the service of said Service.

(June 2, 1948, ch. 373, §2, 62 Stat. 286; 1965 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. July 13, 1965, 30 F.R. 8819, 79 Stat. 1318; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 4, eff. Oct. 3, 1970, 35 F.R. 15627, 84 Stat. 2090; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(b), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"Government Publishing Office" substituted for "Government Printing Office" in text on authority of section 1301(b) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note preceding section 301 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Weather Bureau consolidated with Coast and Geodetic Survey to form new agency in Department of Commerce known as Environmental Science Services Administration by Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1965, eff. July 13, 1965, 30 F.R. 8819, 79 Stat. 1318, set out as a note under section 311 of this title. Functions of Bureau and Chief of Bureau transferred to Secretary of Commerce by Reorg. Plan. Subsequently, Environmental Science Services Administration abolished and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration established. By Department Organization Order 25–5A, Secretary delegated to NOAA his functions under this chapter of the Code. By order of Acting Associate Administrator of NOAA, organizational name of Weather Bureau changed to National Weather Service. For further details, see Codification note set out under section 311 of this title.
### §§4241 to 4246. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–555, §4, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4166

Section 4241, Pub. L. 98–365, title IV, §401, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 459, related to authority of Secretary of Commerce to license private sector parties, conditions for grant of license, review of applications by Secretary, and provisions relating to denial of licenses.

Section 4242, Pub. L. 98–365, title IV, §402, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 459; Pub. L. 102–567, title I, §114(b), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4279, provided licensing requirements for operation of private remote-sensing space system.

Section 4243, Pub. L. 98–365, title IV, §403, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 460, related to administrative authority of Secretary of Commerce, review of adverse action on license application, and judicial review of final actions.

Section 4244, Pub. L. 98–365, title IV, §404, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 461, related to regulatory authority of Secretary of Commerce.

Section 4245, Pub. L. 98–365, title IV, §405, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 461, related to licensing of private remote-sensing space systems which utilize civilian government satellites or vehicles, assistance by Secretary of Commerce in finding opportunities for such utilization, utilization agreements by Federal agencies, research and development, and subchapter's effect on authority of Federal Communications Commission.

Section 4246, Pub. L. 98–365, title IV, §406, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 461, related to termination of subchapter.
### §237. Standard barrels for lime

There is established a large and a small barrel of lime, the large barrel to consist of two hundred and eighty pounds and the small barrel to consist of one hundred and eighty pounds, net weight.

(Aug. 23, 1916, ch. 396, §1, 39 Stat. 530.)
# C_2011319EN.01001801.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — ara v OHIM — Allrounder (A with two rectangular motifs)

(Case T-174/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - International registration covering the European Community - Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs - Earlier national word mark A - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 319/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ara AG (Langenfeld, Germany) (represented initially by M. Gial, then by M. Gial and H. Pernez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Allrounder SARL (Sarrebourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between ara AG and Allrounder SARL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ara AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ara AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

1

---
#### § 85.13 Cleaning and disinfecting livestock markets and other facilities.

Livestock markets and other facilities used in connection with the interstate movement of pseudorabies infected or exposed livestock shall be cleaned and disinfected in compliance with § 71.7 of this chapter using one of the disinfectants registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 135 *et seq.*) with herpes virucidal claims. These disinfectants shall be used in accordance with directions on their labels accepted in connection with their registration.

[44 FR 10309, Feb. 16, 1979, as amended at 62 FR 27937, May 22, 1997]
EXHIBIT 32-1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of WNC Housing Tax Credit
Fund IV, L.P., Series 2 (the  "Partnership") for the years ended March 31, 2007,
2006, 2005, and 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper,
Jr.,  President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,  general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

1.        The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that  (a) such  provisions  require  certain  audit  reports  of Local
          Limited Partnership  financial statements to refer to the standards of
          the Public  Company  Accounting  Oversight  Board;  and (b) the annual
          report  covers the six year period ended March 31, 2007,  and includes
          disclosure  required  in the annual  reports for the years ended March
          31, 2006, 2005, and 2004 in addition to the year ended March 31, 2007;
          and

2.        The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
March 17, 2008
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-175-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
§ 124.22 Revision of regulatory review period determination. ( a ) Any interested person may request a revision of the regulatory review period determination within the 30 day period beginning on its publication in the Federal Register. The request must be sent to the Director, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, 1920 Dayton Avenue, P.O. Box 844, Ames, IA 50010. The request must specify the following: ( 1 ) The identity of the product;
( 2 ) The identity of the applicant for patent term restoration;
( 3 ) The docket number of the Federal Register notice announcing the regulatory review period determination; and
( 4 ) The basis for the request for revision, including any documentary evidence.
( b ) If APHIS decides to revise its prior determination, APHIS will notify PTO of the decision, and will send a copy of notification to the applicant and the person requesting the revision (if different from the applicant) with a request for comments within 10 days of notification. If no comment on the proposed revision is received, APHIS will publish the revision in the Federal Register, and include a statement giving the reasons for the revision. If comment is received, APHIS will make a final determination regarding the revision based on such comment and will then publish the revision in the Federal Register, giving reasons for its determination.
[59 FR 11369, Feb. 25, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 67617, Dec. 30, 1994; 64 FR 43045, Aug. 9, 1999; 75 FR 20773, Apr. 21, 2010]
La manera más importante para manternese

sano es participar activamente en el cuidado de

su propia salud. Esta información le ayudará

planificar su operación. 

Ninguna cirugía es libre de riesgos. Es

importante entender acerca de los posibles

beneficios y riesgos producidos por un

procedimiento quirúrgico que se vaya a hacer.

Investigaciones científicas han mostrado que

pacientes que están informados acerca de sus

procedimientos pueden colaborar mejor con sus

doctores para hacer las decisiones correctas. 

Obtener una segunda opinión es importante. Su

doctor, el cirujano, su seguro médico, o sociedad

médica local le pueden ayudar a encontrar

alguien que le puede proporcionar una segunda

opinión. Antes de obtener una segunda opinión,

asegúrese que su seguro médico cubrirá este

gasto. 

Antes de la operación, pregúntele a su médico lo

siguiente:

• ¿Qué operación recomienda usted? 

• ¿Por qué necesito la operación? 

• ¿Existen alternativas a la cirugía? 

• ¿Cuáles son los beneficios de la operación? 

• ¿Cuáles son los riesgos de la operación?

• ¿Qué sucederá si no me opero? 

• ¿Dónde puedo obtener una segunda opinión?

• ¿Cuál ha sido su experiencia con esta

operación? 

Consejos para cuando

necesite operarse
• ¿Cuántas operaciones de este tipo ha

realizado? 

• ¿Dónde se hará la operación? 

• ¿Qué clase de anestesia necesitaré? 

• ¿Cuánto tiempo me tomará para

recuperarme? 

• ¿ Cuánto costará la operación?

Recuerde que en cuanto a su salud, la calidad de

la atención médica vale mucho.

Para más información en español sobre la salud,

llame a 1-800-358-9295 o visítenos en el

Internet a ahrq.gov/consumer/espanoix.htm. La

información es gratis.

www.ahrq.gov

AHRQ Pub. No. 02-0041d

September 2002