alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 917.11 Guidelines for Sea Grant Fellowships. ( a ) Sea Grant Fellowships are designed to provide educational and training assistance to qualified individuals at the undergraduate and graduate levels of education in fields related to ocean and coastal resources. The objective of the program is to increase the national supply of individuals educated and trained in the assessment, development, utilization, and conservation of ocean and coastal resources. The purpose of this section is to provide guidelines regarding the content of applications for Sea Grant Fellowship funding.
( b ) Funding will be made to eligible entities (see § 917.10 of this part) that are selected to award and administer Sea Grant Fellowships. Fellowships will not be awarded directly to students by the Office of Sea Grant. The entity receiving Fellowship funding will select the students to be awarded the Fellowships and will handle the administration of the Fellowships.
( c ) Proposals for Fellowship funding will be expected to address ( 1 ) the nature and focus of the proposed Fellowship Program,
( 2 ) the utilization of institutional or other appropriate resources in the education and training of Sea Grant Fellows,
( 3 ) the method of advertising availability of the Fellowships,
( 4 ) the method of selection of recipients, and
( 5 ) the terms of tenure and method of determining continuity of tenure.
( d ) Innovation and uniqueness will be significant factors in the determination of which proposals will be funded. Another factor considered will be the potential of the proposed program to stimulate interest in marine related careers among those individuals; for example, minorities, women, and the handicapped whose previous background or training might not have generated such an interest.
( e ) The total amount that may be provided for grants under the Sea Grant Fellowship Program during any fiscal year cannot exceed an amount equal to five percent of the total funds appropriated for the Matched Funding Program for that year. Fellowship programs are subject to the requirement of a minimum of 331 ⁄ 3 percent matching funds from non-Federal sources to which all Matched Funding Program projects are subject. Indirect costs are not allowable for either the Fellowships or for any costs associated with the Fellowships.
Considering the variations in the cost-of-living and the differences in tuition, fees, etc., between one college or university and another, the amount of money requested and awarded per Fellowship may vary.
*Figure 3.  Percentages of Persons Aged 18 or Older Reporting Past Month Alcohol Use, by Time Period and Geographic Area:  2000 and 2001.*  Chapter 2's Figure 3 is a bar chart depicting the percentage of adults aged 18 or older reporting alcohol use during the past month, by time period and geographic area for 2000 and 2001.  In the NY CMSA, the rates of past month alcohol use increased among persons aged 18 or older during 2001, rising from 51.4 percent in the first three quarters to 58.0 percent in the fourth.

Click here to return to Figure 3
H. R. 33 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to specify when certain securities issued 

in connection with church plans are treated as exempted securities for purposes 

of that Act. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Church Plan Investment Clarification Act’’. 

SEC. 2. SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AMENDMENT. 

Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(2)) 

is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘(other than a retirement income account 

described in section 403(b)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986, to the extent that the interest or participation in 

such single trust fund or collective trust fund is issued to 

a church, a convention or association of churches, or an 

organization described in section 414(e)(3)(A) of such Code 

establishing or maintaining the retirement income account or 

to a trust established by any such entity in connection with 

the retirement income account)’’ after ‘‘403(b) of such Code’’; 

and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘(other than a person participating in a 

church plan who is described in section 414(e)(3)(B) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986)’’ after ‘‘section 401(c)(1) of 

such Code’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Connelly, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 614]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered April 4, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court correctly declined to submit manslaughter in the second degree as a lesser-included offense of depraved indifference murder since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant committed the lesser offense without having committed the greater offense *(see*CPL 300.50 [1]; *People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61 [1982]; *People v James,*19 AD3d 616 [2005]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was denied the constitutional right to present a defense *(see People v Angelo,*88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; *People v Paixao,*23 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2005]). Moreover, the defendant waived any claim that the People’s evidence was legally insufficient to prove his guilt of depraved indifference murder *(see People v Soto,*8 AD3d 683, 684 [2004]), and he failed to preserve any claim that all of the evidence was legally *864insufficient to prove his guilt of depraved indifference murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [2]; CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hines,*97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; *People v Kingsberry,*11 AD3d 561, 562 [2004]; *People v Soto, supra).*To the extent that the defendant seeks review of such an unpreserved claim, we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant did not request a jury charge on the defense of intoxication *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Pringle,*270 AD2d 291 [2000]; *People v Quinones,*251 AD2d 517 [1998]) and, indeed, affirmatively waived that claim.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, when viewed in its entirety, the trial court’s charge adequately conveyed the proper definitions and elements of the defendant’s justification defense *(see People v Strong,*256 AD2d 427 [1998]; *People v Dawes,*175 AD2d 174 [1991]). In any event, any error in the trial court’s failure to elaborate upon the duty to retreat and instruct on the home exception does not warrant reversal since the overwhelming evidence disproved the justification defense *(see People v Jones,*3 NY3d 491, 497 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### Edward Moore, Trading as Moore Bros., Respondent, v. The American Molasses Company of New York, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
#### Frank J. Scarane, Appellant, v. T. H. Fraser Mortgage Corp. et al., Respondents.

It is our opinion that the contract should have been received in evidence and other excluded proof permitted to determine whether the subscription of the seller’s name in typewriting was authorized by the seller and made with the intention of subscribing the seller’s name within the intent and meaning of section 259 of the Real Property Law. *(Bork*v. *Martin,*132 N. Y. 280. 285; *Landeker*v. *Co-Operative Bldg. Bank,*71 Misc. 517, 518; *Mesibov, Glinert & Levy*v. *Cohen Bros. Mfg. Co.,*245 N. Y. 305, 310; *Koch*v. *Regan,*272 App. Div. 920.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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




In
      connection with this Annual Report of Speedhaul Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Andrew Norins, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certifies to the best of his 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
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 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 Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
      ending December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Speedhaul Holdings,
      Inc.




Dated:
                February 26, 2007




**SPEEDHAUL
      HOLDINGS, INC.**




By:
            */s/
                Andrew Norins*


Andrew
      Norins


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer
1

*AMENDED DLD-197 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-1592

___________

IN RE: DELGARDO SCOTT,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 02-cr-00073)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 18, 2013

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 11, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Delgardo Scott is a federal inmate. He has filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus, dated February 27, 2013, asking us to compel the District Court to issue a ruling on 

the motion to dismiss that he filed in his criminal case. Scott identified the motion to dismiss 

by certified mail number, and the record shows that the motion was signed and mailed on 

October 24, 2012, and filed on the docket on October 26, 2012.

Scott already has received the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition, as the District 

Court denied the motion to dismiss by order entered November 8, 2012. Thus, the matter is 
2

moot. See County of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001). 

Because the District Court has adjudicated Scott’s motion, and there is no need for our 

intervention, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Blanciak v. Allegheny 

Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).1

 

1

 Within this mandamus action, Scott has also filed documents, including Petitions To 

Dismiss, in which he seeks, among other things, dismissal of his criminal proceedings and 

immediate release from incarceration. We decline to rule on these documents. To the extent 

that he wishes to pursue a collateral attack on the judgment and sentence in his criminal case, 

he must pursue such relief in the District Court. Insofar as Scott may be objecting to the 

District Court’s ruling on his motion to dismiss filed in District Court, it is not appropriate for 

us to issue relief via mandamus in lieu of an appeal. See, e.g., In re Baldwin, 700 F.3d 122, 

127 (3d Cir. 2012); In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert L. Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A
of Tabatha III, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this annual report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to
the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based
on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors
and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this annual report whether there were significant changes
in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 16, 2004


Robert L. Smith
President and Director
NRC APPROVES INCREASED POWER OUTPUT FOR 

ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 2 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a power uprate request by Florida 

Power & Light (FP&L) that will increase the power output of St. Lucie Unit 2 by 17 percent, 

from approximately 853 to 1,002 megawatts electric. 

 A similar uprate was approved July 9 for St. Lucie Unit 1. The two pressurized-water 

reactors are located approximately 10 miles southeast of Ft. Pierce, Fla. 

 FP&L submitted a license amendment request on Feb. 25, 2011, (supplemented several 

times since) to raise the thermal output of St. Lucie Unit 2 from 2,700 to 3,020 megawatts 

thermal, which translates into the 17 percent increase in electricity generation. 

The NRC staff’s evaluation determined that FP&L could safely increase the reactor’s 

power output primarily by carrying out significant upgrades to several plant systems and 

components, including the steam and power conversion system and the condensate and 

feedwater system. As part of its evaluation, NRC staff reviewed the company’s analysis showing 

the plant’s design can accommodate the increased power level. 

The NRC’s safety evaluation of the plant’s proposed power uprate focused on several 

areas, including the plant’s steam generators, the reactor pressure vessel material surveillance 

program, pressurized thermal shock, and reactor internal and core support materials. 

 FP&L intends to implement the uprate in the next few months. 

 The NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate application in the Federal 

Register. The agency’s evaluation of the St. Lucie Unit 2 power uprate will be available through 

the NRC’s ADAMS electronic document database by selecting “accession number” as the 

property and entering “ML12235A463” as the value.

### 

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 12-105 September 24, 2012
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128046 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. METROPOLITAN SOCIETY FOR CRIPPLED Stephen J. Markman, CHILDREN & ADULTS, Justices Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 128046 COA: 257526 Ingham CC: 03-000723-AA STATE OF MICHIGAN, BUREAU OF STATE LOTTERY and COMMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF STATE LOTTERY, Respondents-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27,

2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0919 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, 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.

September 28, 2005

Clerk
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: April 23, 2015 519189

________________________________ In the Matter of ANTHONY MEDINA, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: February 24, 2015 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ Anthony Medina, Romulus, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with threats, conspiring to take over an area of the correctional facility, urging others to participate in actions detrimental to the facility and creating a disturbance. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner became loud and disruptive and began pulling on the metal observation mesh in his cell. This caused the lock and unlock lights for petitioner's cell to flash-2- 519189

in the control room. When correction officers responded to his cell, he continued to yell threats and encourage inmates to "rile this place up." Following a tier III disciplinary hearing at which petitioner pleaded guilty with explanation to creating a disturbance, the Hearing Officer found him guilty of that charge and not guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. Petitioner's plea of guilty with an explanation precludes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Campbell v Bedard, 123 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2014]; Matter of Ramos v Annucci, 121 AD3d 1486, 1486 [2014]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including that he was denied the assistant of his choice and that the Hearing Officer improperly denied him access to the confidential mental health testimony, are unpreserved for our review given his failure to raise them at the hearing (see Matter of Robinson v Annucci, 122 AD3d 981, 982 [2014]; Matter of Abrams v Fischer, 109 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2013]). McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
§ 998.29 Waivers or suspension of compliance. ( a ) The Secretary may waive the service obligations of an officer incurred under § 998.23, § 998.24, and § 998.27 who: ( 1 ) Becomes unqualified to serve on active duty in the NOAA Corps because of a circumstance not within the control of that officer; or
( 2 ) Is: ( i ) Not physically qualified for appointment; and
( ii ) Determined to be unqualified for service in the NOAA Corps because of a physical or medical condition that was not the result of the officer's own misconduct or grossly negligent conduct.
( b ) The Secretary may waive the service obligations of an officer incurred under § 998.25 who fails to satisfy the eligibility requirements if the Secretary determines that the imposition of the repayment requirement and the termination of unpaid amounts of such assistance would be— ( 1 ) Contrary to personnel policy or management objective;
( 2 ) Against equity and good conscience; or
( 3 ) Contrary to the best interest of the United States.
( c ) With respect to a service obligation under § 998.27(a), the Secretary may relieve an officer's ADSO and provide an alternative obligation at the discretion of the Secretary, the terms of which will be documented in a new written agreement.
( d ) The authorities provided in this part to grant waivers or exceptions will be referenced in all written agreements.
#### § 923.45 Air and water pollution control requirements.

The program must incorporate, by reference or otherwise, all requirements established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (Clean Water Act or CWA), or the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), or established by the Federal Government or by any state or local government pursuant to such Acts. Such requirements must be the water pollution control and air pollution control requirements applicable to such program. Incorporation of the air and water quality requirements pursuant to the CWA and CAA should involve their consideration during program development, especially with respect to use determinations and designation of areas for special management. In addition, this incorporation will prove to be more meaningful if close coordination and working relationships between the State agency and the air and water quality agencies are developed and maintained throughout the program development process and after program approval.
#### Richard B. Adler, as Executor of Florence B. Adler, Deceased, Respondent, v. Westwood Pharmacal Corporation et al., Appellants.

Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.