alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert Bollino, Appellant, v Gary Hitzig et al., Defendants, and Seymour Handler, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 511]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), entered November 15, 2005, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered July 8, 2005, upon an order of the same court entered March 8, 2005, dismissing the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, as is in favor of the defendant Seymour Handler and against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint was dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 after the plaintiff failed to appear on the date scheduled for jury selection. To be relieved of his default in appearing, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action *(see McClaren v Bell Atl.,*30 AD3d 569 [2006]; *Kein v Zeno,*23 AD3d 351 [2005]; *Rubenbauer v Mekelburg,*22 AD3d 826 [2005]). Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs excuse that he was not prepared to proceed with the trial was not reasonable *(see Emmett v St. Peter’s Hosp.,*293 AD2d 446 [2002]; *Wolosin v Campo,*256 AD2d 332, 333 [1998]; *Matter of Alario v DeMarco,*149 AD2d 587, 589-590 [1989]). Furthermore, the affirmation of the plaintiffs medical expert was insufficient to demonstrate that the medical malpractice cause of action was meritorious, since the expert failed to state with specificity, inter alia, his observations as to the procedures or treatments performed and the alleged deviations from the acceptable standards of medical care by the respondent *(see Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp.,*260 AD2d 457 [1999]; *Iazzetta v Vicenzi,*243 AD2d 540 [1997]; *Nepomniaschi v Goldstein,*182 AD2d 743, 744 [1992]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of merit from someone with personal knowledge of the facts with respect to his remaining causes of action. Accordingly, the motion was properly denied. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
# BRITISH 

# AIRWAYS QSDAvionics Standards 

# Fax Cover Sheet DATE: July 2.2002 

## TIME: 14:54 

# RECEIVED JUl 02 2002 ANM-114

TO: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) FAX: 001425227-1232 FROM 

## REF: Tony Morgan

Standards Design Engineer ESA.224.AEM. 3323 PHONE: 01815133702 FAX: 01815133736
Numbe( of pages including cover sheet: [1

## 1 Docket Number 2002-NM-12-AD Dcar Sir, Please take into account the following comments submittec on behalf of British Airways: 1) Any AD issued should refer to acovering Boeing Alert 5B and not acomponent 5B, 2) The change in mod standard for the proposed mandatory requirement should be idenlifiec byachange in part number and not by'MOD 2'written on a post mod unil. Most 'inventory control system's onlytrack parts by part number and SA has 10track the embodiment ormod programmes manually unless the part number of post mod units is changed. This would be an inherently error prone and time consuming process and 

### itis also difficult to demonstrate continuing airworthiness after the embodiment programme has been completec, 3) The implementa~on ofthe modification would require a considerable k>gistical exercise of removing units from aircraft, modifying them inworkshops Ulan installing them on 

### aircraft As anyAD may be applicable to allthe Boeing aircraft SA operates there would a significant risk of operalional disruption with an 18month embodiment period. Would the FAA reconsider the proposed embodiment period, and ,fpOSSible,extend the compliance period totwo years. 

### YourFaithfully A,E.Morgan

PO Box 10Heathrow Airport Hounslow Middlesex TW6 2JATel 0181 562 Telex 8813953 BAwYSC G CJbl~s; British3ir


### TOTAL P.OI
### §831r. Patents; access to Patent and Trademark Office and right to copy patents; compensation to patentees

The Corporation, as an instrumentality and agency of the Government of the United States for the purpose of executing its constitutional powers, shall have access to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the purpose of studying, ascertaining, and copying all methods, formula, and scientific information (not including access to pending applications for patents) necessary to enable the Corporation to use and employ the most efficacious and economical process for the production of fixed nitrogen, or any essential ingredient of fertilizer, or any method of improving and cheapening the production of hydroelectric power, and any owner of a patent whose patent rights may have been thus in any way copied, used, infringed, or employed by the exercise of this authority by the Corporation shall have as the exclusive remedy a cause of action against the Corporation to be instituted and prosecuted on the equity side of the appropriate district court of the United States, for the recovery of reasonable compensation for such infringement. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office shall furnish to the Corporation, at its request and without payment of fees, copies of documents on file in his office: Provided, That the benefits of this section shall not apply to any art, machine, method of manufacture, or composition of matter, discovered or invented by such employee during the time of his employment or service with the Corporation or with the Government of the United States.

(May 18, 1933, ch. 32, §19, 48 Stat. 68; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(b)(7)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–583.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–113 substituted "United States Patent and Trademark Office" for "Patent Office of the United States" and "Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office" for "Commissioner of Patents".

#### Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

#### Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35, Patents.
#### § 339.5 Recordkeeping.

The maintenance of records and submission of reports under this chapter may be accomplished by either electronic or paper means.

[56 FR 50502, Oct. 7, 1991]
### §460mm. Establishment of conservation area

#### (a) In general

In order to provide for the immediate and future protection of the lands in Federal ownership within the framework of a program of multiple use and sustained yield and for the maintenance of environmental quality, the Steese National Conservation Area is hereby established.

#### (b) Boundaries; special values

The Steese National Conservation Area shall include approximately one million two hundred twenty thousand acres of public lands, as generally depicted on the map entitled "Steese National Conservation Area—proposed", and dated October 1978. Special values to be considered in planning and management of the area are: caribou range and Birch Creek.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title IV, §401, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2396.)
# C_2017187EN.01000101.xml

| 13.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8223 — Micro Focus/HPE Software Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 187/01)

On 8 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8223. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8223. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
§ 970.208 Federal lands pavement management system (PMS). In addition to the requirements provided in § 970.204, the PMS must meet the following requirements: ( a ) The NPS shall have PMS coverage of all paved park roads, parkways, parking areas and other associated facilities, as appropriate, that are funded under the FLHP.
( b ) The PMS may be utilized at various levels of technical complexity depending on the nature of the transportation network. These different levels may depend on mileage, functional classes, volumes, loading, usage, surface type, or other criteria the NPS deems appropriate.
( c ) The PMS shall be designed to fit the NPS goals, policies, criteria, and needs using the following components, at a minimum, as a basic framework for a PMS: ( 1 ) A database and an ongoing program for the collection and maintenance of the inventory, inspection, cost, and supplemental data needed to support the PMS. The minimum PMS database shall include: ( i ) An inventory of the physical pavement features including the number of lanes, length, width, surface type, functional classification, and shoulder information;
( ii ) A history of project dates and types of construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance. If some of the inventory or historic data is difficult to establish, it may be collected when preservation or reconstruction work is performed;
( iii ) Condition data that includes roughness, distress, rutting, and surface friction (as appropriate);
( iv ) Traffic information including volumes and vehicle classification (as appropriate); and
( v ) Data for estimating the costs of actions.
( 2 ) A system for applying network level analytical procedures that are capable of analyzing data for all park roads, parkways and other appropriate associated facilities in the inventory or any subset. The minimum analyses shall include: ( i ) A pavement condition analysis that includes roughness, distress, rutting, and surface friction (as appropriate);
( ii ) A pavement performance analysis that includes present and predicted performance and an estimate of the remaining service life (performance and remaining service life to be developed with time); and
( iii ) An investment analysis that: ( A ) Identifies alternative strategies to improve pavement conditions;
( B ) Estimates costs of any pavement improvement strategy;
( C ) Determines maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation strategies for pavements using life-cycle cost analysis or a comparable procedure;
( D ) Provides for short and long term budget forecasting; and
( E ) Recommends optimal allocation of limited funds by developing a prioritized list of candidate projects over a predefined planning horizon (both short and long term).
( d ) For any park roads, parkways and other appropriate associated facilities in the inventory or subset thereof, PMS reporting requirements shall include, but are not limited to, percentage of roads in good, fair, and poor condition.
[69 FR 9473, Feb. 27, 2004; 69 FR 16793, Mar. 31, 2004]
#### In the Matter of Marie Ramundo against Harris H. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, J J.
§ 300.195 Decision. ( a ) The designee who conducts the show cause hearing— ( 1 ) Within 120 days after the record of a show cause hearing is closed, issues a written decision that includes a statement of findings; and
( 2 ) Submits a copy of the decision to the Secretary and sends a copy to each party by certified mail with return receipt requested.
( b ) Each party may submit comments and recommendations on the designee's decision to the Secretary within 30 days of the date the party receives the designee's decision.
( c ) The Secretary adopts, reverses, or modifies the designee's decision and notifies all parties to the show cause hearing of the Secretary's final action. That notice is sent by certified mail with return receipt requested.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(f)(3))
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 325 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the whistleblower complaint received 

on August 12, 2019, by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community should be transmitted immediately to the Select Committee on 

Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the whistleblower 

complaint received on August 12, 2019, by the Inspector 

General of the Intelligence Community should be transmitted immediately to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) the whistleblower complaint received on Au3 gust 12, 2019, by the Inspector General of the Intel4 ligence Community shall be transmitted immediately 

5 to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the SenVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:46 Sep 24, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR325.ATS SR325

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 325 ATS 

1 ate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intel2 ligence of the House of Representatives; and 

3 (2) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the 

4 Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on In5 telligence of the House of Representatives should be 

6 allowed to evaluate the complaint in a deliberate and 

7 bipartisan manner consistent with applicable stat8 utes and processes in order to safeguard classified 

9 and sensitive information. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
§ 300.147 Implementation by SEA. In implementing § 300.146, the SEA must— ( a ) Monitor compliance through procedures such as written reports, on-site visits, and parent questionnaires;
( b ) Disseminate copies of applicable standards to each private school and facility to which a public agency has referred or placed a child with a disability; and
( c ) Provide an opportunity for those private schools and facilities to participate in the development and revision of State standards that apply to them.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(B))
I Mule Deer Winter Ranges Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands 

g:\blm\buttermp\ams\FinalFigures\fig2-17_MuleDeer8511.mxd 

0 Miles 25
 Mule Deer Winter Ranges Butte Field Office - EIS 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of RMP Planning Area, Montana
 Land Management (BLM) for use of FIGURE 2-17
 data for purposes not intended by BLM.
# Official Journal C 275/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 275 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6214 August 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 275

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6214 August 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| 2019/C 275/01 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — The European semester and cohesion policy: aligning structural reforms with long-term investments | 1 |
| | OPINIONS |
| 2019/C 275/02 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementation of the EU Forest Strategy | 5 |

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

2019/C 275/01

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — The European semester and cohesion policy: aligning structural reforms with long-term investments

1

OPINIONS

2019/C 275/02

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementation of the EU Forest Strategy

5

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Hibernia  Corporation  of our report dated January 12, 1999,  included in the
1998 Annual Report to Shareholders of Hibernia Corporation.

We also consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in the  following  Hibernia
Corporation Registration Statements

         Form S-3 No. 33-26553 (dated February 21, 1989)
         Form S-8 No. 2-81353 (dated February 23, 1989)
         Form S-8 No. 33-26871 (dated February 23, 1989)
         Form S-3 No. 33-37701 (dated January 31, 1991)
         Form S-8 No. 2-96194 (dated April 8, 1991)
         Form S-3 No. 33-53108 (dated December 28, 1992)
         Form S-3 No. 33-55844 (dated December 28, 1992)
         Form S-8 No. 33-59743 (dated June 1, 1995)
         Form S-3 No. 333-8133 (dated September 19, 1996)
         Form S-8 No. 333-07761 (dated July 8, 1996)
         Form S-8 No. 333-36017 (dated September 19, 1997)
         Form S-8 No. 333-56053 (dated June 4, 1998)
 
of our report dated January 12, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements  of Hibernia  Corporation  incorporated  by  reference in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                                    /s/Ernst & Young LLP


New Orleans, Louisiana
March 16, 1999
431 P.2d 56

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reyes BARELA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8409.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Aug. 28, 1967.

Jones, Gallegos, Snead & Wertheim, ;Santa Fe, for appellant.

Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Donald W. .Miller, Edward', R.. Pearson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.

OPINION'

HENSLEY, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals.

A Grand Jury in Santa Fe County returned an indictment accusing Reyes Bare-la with violations of §§ 54-7-13 and 54— 7-14, N.M.S.A. 1953. The defendant disqualified the resident judges, employed an attorney and moved for a change of venue. Following.an adverse ruling on his motion the defendant entered pleas of guilty to the two .counts contained in the indictment. Sentences to be served concurrently were imposed. The defendant then moved to vacate the judgment and sentences pursuant to § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953. Free process was sought and was granted. Following an adverse ruling on the motion the defendant has appealed to this court.

The appellant contends that the pre-trial publicity in Santa Fe County caused him to enter pleas of guilty. The trial court found that the publicity given the case had not prejudiced the minds of the inhabitants of Santa Fe County. This finding was made after the court had heard the evidence submitted in support of the motion for a change of venue. The finding is conclusive where no abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Chavez, 58 N.M. 802, 277 P.2d 302. No abuse of discretion was shown here. The appellant places some reliance on Estes v. State of Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, and Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333; 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600. The cases are readily distinguishable. In Estes the- ruling of the court was not based •on pre-trial 'publicity. The determinative -factor was the disturbance and disorder in the court room caused by telecasting the proceedings. The atmosphere in the court •room prevented the trial process from providing a reliable determination of guilt/-' In Sheppard a similar situation existed and the court there held that the prejudicial publicity and disruptive influences attend-ing the prosecution deprived the petitioner of a fair trial. • • - ......

*324Further attack on the judgment and sentence is grounded on the alleged unconstitutionality of § 5-4 — 7-13, N.M.S.A. 1953. This contention is voiced for the first time in this case on appeal to this court. The attack raised no question of jurisdiction and cannot be raised initially in this court. State v. Lattin, 78 N.M. 49, 428 P.2d 23. Section 21-2-1(20), N. M.S.A.1953.

Each of the points relied upon by the appellant in his motion to vacate the judgment and sentence although not briefed have been noted and are here again found to be without merit.

It is so ordered.

COMPTON and CARMODY, JJ., concur.
### §583j–8. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) Startup funds

For the purposes of section 583j–3 of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000.

#### (b) Matching funds

For the purposes of section 583j–3 of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2023 to the Secretary of Agriculture to be made available to the Foundation to match, on a one-for-one basis, private contributions made to the Foundation.

(Pub. L. 101–593, title IV, §410, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2973; Pub. L. 103–106, §3(b), Oct. 12, 1993, 107 Stat. 1032; Pub. L. 114–54, title II, §201(b), Sept. 30, 2015, 129 Stat. 515; Pub. L. 115–334, title VIII, §8503(b), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4847.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–334 substituted "2023" for "2018".

2015—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–54 substituted "there are authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2018" for "during the five-year period beginning October 1, 1992, there are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 annually".

1993—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–106 substituted "beginning October 1, 1992" for "following November 16, 1990".
#### § 1300.50 General.

Where a State is found to be in non-compliance with the requirements of the grant programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906, or with other applicable law, the sanctions in §§ 1300.51 and 1300.52, and any other sanctions or remedies permitted under Federal law, including the specific conditions of 2 CFR 200.208 and 200.339, may be applied as appropriate.
#### § 300.24 Individualized family service plan.

*Individualized family service plan* or *IFSP* has the meaning given the term in section 636 of the Act.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(15))