alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Negvesky et al., Respondents, v United Interior Resources, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Planned System Integration, Ltd., Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 107]

*531In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unjust enrichment and for the imposition of a constructive trust, the defendant Planned System Integration, Ltd., appeals, as limited by its brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated April 19, 2005, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to vacate a demand for a verified statement pursuant to Lien Law § 76 (5) relating to the installation of certain modular workstations, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated August 22, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to amend its answer to assert a fifth counterclaim to impose a trust pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Lien Law article 3-A creates a statutory trust for funds received by owners, contractors, or subcontractors “in connection with an improvement of real property in this state” (Lien Law § 70 [1]). The trust’s aim is to ensure that “certain parties involved in [such] improvement . . . will be properly compensated for their services” *(Sabol & Rice v Poughkeepsie Galleria Co.,*175 AD2d 555, 556 [1991]). The installation of modular workstations provided by the appellant does not qualify as an “improvement” within the meaning of Lien Law § 2 (4) and §70 (1). The appellant did not demolish, erect, or alter any structure, nor did it perform work or furnish materials for its permanent improvement *(see*Lien Law § 2 [4]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to vacate the appellant’s demand for a verified statement pursuant to Lien Law § 76 (5) relating to the installation of certain modular workstations.

The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for leave to amend its answer to assert a fifth counterclaim to impose a trust pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A. Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted where the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit and will not prejudice or surprise the opposing party *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Bolanowski v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y.,*21 AD3d 340, 341 [2005]; *Crespo v Pucciarelli,*21 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2005]). As the Supreme Court properly determined that the Lien Law was not applicable, the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit.

*532The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### Durwood Eisaman, Appellant, v. County of Madison, Respondent.

Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster and Bergan, JJ., concur; Coon, J., taking no part.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.  The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors.  Comments must be received not later than February 20, 2004.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Sue Costello, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:                

*1.  Thelma Virginia Cummings Guilbeau*, Sunset, Louisiana;  to retain voting shares of Sunset Bancorp, Inc., Sunset, Louisiana, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Bank of Sunset & Trust Company, Sunset, Louisiana.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 2, 2004.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 04-2657 Filed 2-5-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### § 1000.27 Directorate for Health Sciences.

The Directorate for Health Sciences is managed by the Associate Executive Director for Health Sciences and is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the human health effects and hazards related to consumer products and assessing exposure, uptake and metabolism, including information on population segments at risk. Directorate staff conducts health studies and research in the field of consumer product-related injuries. The Directorate performs risk assessments for chemical, physiological and physical hazards based on methods such as medical injury modeling, and on injury and incident data for mechanical, thermal, chemical and electrical hazards in consumer products. It provides the Commission's primary source of scientific expertise for implementation of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The Directorate assists in the development and evaluation of product safety standards and test methods based on scientific and public health principles. It provides support to the Commission's regulatory development and enforcement activities. It manages hazard identification and analysis, and hazard assessment and reduction projects as assigned. The Directorate provides liaison with the National Toxicology Program, the Department of Health and Human Services (including the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health), the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, other Federal agencies and programs, and other organizations concerned with reducing the risk to consumers from exposure to consumer product hazards.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3747 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3747

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the alternative 
   minimum tax exemption amount and index such amount for inflation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 20, 2011

Mrs. Lowey (for herself and Mr. Garrett) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the alternative 
   minimum tax exemption amount and index such amount for inflation.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT 
              INDEXED FOR INFLATION.

    (a) Increase.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$45,000 ($72,450 in the case of taxable 
        years beginning in 2010 and $74,450 in the case of taxable 
        years beginning in 2011)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
        ``$100,000'', and
            (2) by striking ``$33,750 ($47,450 in the case of taxable 
        years beginning in 2010 and $48,450 in the case of taxable 
        years beginning in 2011)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
        ``$75,000''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Subsection (d) of section 55 of such 
Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
        year beginning after 2012, the dollar amounts in subparagraphs 
        (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) shall each be increased by an 
        amount equal to--
                    ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                    ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined 
                under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which 
                the taxable year begins, determined by substituting 
                `calendar year 2011' for `calendar year 1992' in 
                subparagraph (B) thereof.
        If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not a 
        multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the next 
        lowest multiple of $100.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
**GAO-02-1115R**                      Published: Sep 20, 2002. Publicly Released: Sep 20, 2002.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

GAO reviewed the audit report covering the financial statements for the National Ski Patrol System, Incorporated, for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. GAO found no reportable instances of noncompliance. The audit report included the auditors' opinions that the financial statements of the corporation were presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

## Full Report

Full Report (2 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Auditing and Financial Management

Accounting standardsAudit reportsFederal corporationsFinancial statement auditsReporting requirementsFinancial statementsFederally chartered corporationFinancial managementRegulatory noncomplianceAuditors
§ 316.2 Definitions. ( a ) The definition of the term “affirmative consent” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(1).
( b ) “Character” means an element of the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (“ASCII”) character set.
( c ) The definition of the term “commercial electronic mail message” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(2).
( d ) The definition of the term “electronic mail address” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(5).
( e ) The definition of the term “electronic mail message” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(6).
( f ) The definition of the term “initiate” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(9).
( g ) The definition of the term “Internet” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(10).
( h ) “Person” means any individual, group, unincorporated association, limited or general partnership, corporation, or other business entity.
( i ) The definition of the term “procure” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(12).
( j ) The definition of the term “protected computer” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(13).
( k ) The definition of the term “recipient” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(14).
( l ) The definition of the term “routine conveyance” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(15).
( m ) The definition of the term “sender” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(16), *provided that*, when more than one person's products, services, or Internet website are advertised or promoted in a single electronic mail message, each such person who is within the Act's definition will be deemed to be a “sender,” except that, only one person will be deemed to be the “sender” of that message if such person: (A) is within the Act's definition of “sender”; (B) is identified in the “from” line as the sole sender of the message; and (C) is in compliance with 15 U.S.C. 7704(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 7704(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. 7704(a)(3)(A)(i), 15 U.S.C. 7704(a)(5)(A), and 16 CFR 316.4.
( n ) The definition of the term “sexually oriented material” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7704(d)(4).
( o ) The definition of the term “transactional or relationship messages” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(17).
( p ) “Valid physical postal address” means the sender's current street address, a Post Office box the sender has accurately registered with the United States Postal Service, or a private mailbox the sender has accurately registered with a commercial mail receiving agency that is established pursuant to United States Postal Service regulations.
### §11283. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–607, title I, §142(c)(1)(A), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3057

Section, Pub. L. 99–660, title IX, §953, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3814, authorized appropriations for fiscal years 1988 through 1991 to carry out program of dissemination of information on Alzheimer's disease.
**Exhibit
        32**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
 
 
 Michael
        V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Manager of Vestin
        Mortgage, Inc., the sole Manager of Vestin Fund III, LLC (the “Registrant”), and
        John Alderfer, as Chief Financial Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., hereby
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that
 
 (1)
              The
                  Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as
                  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
                  (the
                  “Report”), fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 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
                  Registrant.
 
 Dated:
        May 11, 2006
 
 
 
 /s/
        Michael V. Shustek
 Michael
        V. Shustek*
 Chief
        Executive Officer and Director of the Manager
 of
        Vestin
        Mortgage, Inc., Manager of the Registrant
 
 
 Dated:
        May 11, 2006
 
 
 
 /s/
        John Alderfer
 John
        Alderfer*
 Chief
        Financial Officer of the Manager
 of
        Vestin
        Mortgage, Inc., Manager of the Registrant
 
 
 
 *
        Michael
        V. Shustek and John Alderfer function, respectively, as the equivalent of
        the
        Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant for
        purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
### SUBCHAPTER V—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 13 - 0055 - CR No. 07 - 13 - 0056 - CR No. 07 - 13 - 0057 - CR

________________________ DAVID BENNARD WICKERSON , APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 108 th District Court

Potter County, Texas Tri a l Court No s . 62,326 - E, 62,317 - E and 62,388 - E, Honorable Douglas Woodburn , Presiding 

### March 13 , 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUI NN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK , JJ. Appellant, David Bennard Wickerson , appeals h is conviction s for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, tampering with physical evidence and possession of a controlled substance. The certification of right to appeal executed by the trial court in each case states that this A is a plea bargain case and the defendant has NO right of appeal @ and A the defendant has waived the right of appeal. @ This circumstance was2

brought to the attention of appellant and opportunity was granted him to obtain an amended ce rtification entitling him t o appeal each case . No such certification was received within the time we allotted. Having received no amended certification, we dismiss the appeal s per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d). Per Curiam Do not publish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 05 15 12:40p 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

Metro Jet 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Adrrllnistrative Law Ju ge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTranspo ation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Federal Aviation Adrrllnistr tion 

800 Independence Avenue W 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn; Hearing Docket Clerk AGC-43D 

Wilbur Wright Building- S ite 2Wl 000 

Fax: (202) 267-1293 

Leonardo Concepcion 

AirCal, Inc. 

FAA Case 2014¥/P91 0129, FDMS FAA-20 5-1324 

L 

5629237181 

On October 27,2015, the Federal Aviation Administration d AirCal, Inc. entered into a 

mutually agreeable Settlement Agreement eal is hereby withdrawn. 

Tlf 

Signed this 9-.. 7 day of November 2015. 

~'>;::'~~ Leonardo Concepcion 

AirCal, Inc. 

p.1
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

 February 9, 2016 

IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

 REFER TO: M160209 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Brooke P. Clark, Director 

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – AFFIRMATION SESSION, 11:00 

A.M., TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2016, COMMISSIONERS' 

CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, 

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

I. SECY-16-0004 – NUCLEAR INNOVATION NORTH AMERICA, LLC (SOUTH TEXAS 

PROJECT, UNITS 3 AND 4): MANDATORY HEARING DECISION 

The Commission approved a Memorandum and Order addressing the required findings in 

10 C.F.R. §§ 52.97(a) and 51.107(a) and the issues discussed at the uncontested hearing on 

November 19, 2015, concerning the combined license application of Nuclear Innovation North 

America, LLC and its co-applicants to construct and operate Units 3 and 4 at the South Texas 

Project site in Matagorda County, Texas. The Memorandum and Order authorizes issuance of 

the combined licenses. 

(Subsequently, on February 9, 2016, the Secretary signed the Memorandum and Order.) 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 EDO 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCAA 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael A. Arends, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Marchex, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Marchex, Inc.



|                   |  |        |  |                         
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | ------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2011 |  | By:    |  | /S/    MICHAEL A.
ARENDS
|                   |  | Name:  |  | Michael A. Arends       
|                   |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
Second Department,

November, 1951.

(November 2, 1951.)

#### In the Matter of Emmett McNamara, Appellant, against Robert Hairston et al., Constituting the Suffolk County Board of Elections, Respondents.

No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
#### § 321.1 Cross-reference.

The rules formerly at 16 CFR part 321 have been republished by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at 12 CFR part 1014, “Mortgage Acts and Practices Advertising (Regulation N).”
October 6, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – COMSECY-15-0025 – PROPOSED 

REVISION TO THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS FOR FORCEON-FORCE INSPECTIONS 

The Commission has approved staff's proposed revision to the advanced notification to 

licensees of force-on-force inspections from the period of 8 to 12 weeks prior to the inspection 

to a new period of 9 to 15 months prior to the inspection. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
§ 1207.9 Product certification. ( a ) Certification shall be in accordance with section 14(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1)).
( b ) A certificate shall accompany the swimming pool slide (in the form of a permanent label on the shipping container(s) or in the form of a separate certificate) to all distributors and retailers to whom the material is delivered certifying that the slide conforms to this part 1207. The certificate or permanent label issued under this section shall be based upon either a test of each product or a reasonable testing program, shall state the name of the manufacturer or private labeler issuing the certificate, and shall include the date and place of manufacture.
( c ) Any certificate shall be based upon the test procedures and requirements specified in this part 1207.