alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(November 27,1951.)

#### J. Arthur Warner *&*Co., Incorporated, Appellant, *v.*Harold I. Baker et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

*Per Curiam.*

In this action to recover damages of $13,500 for the alleged breach of a contract of employment, certain of the defendants have been granted leave to serve an amended answer incorporating among other things, three defenses and counterclaims in favor of one of the moving defendants, *647predicated upon slander and the malicious dissemination of false information by which damages totaling $250,000 is sought. Plaintiff has appealed from so much of the order as permits the interposition of the three defenses and counterclaims.

The motion for leave to serve the amended answer appears to have been brought about by plaintiff’s refusal to accept less than $5,000 in settlement of its claim. It would seem, therefore, that the purpose of the counterclaims is to bring about settlement of plaintiff’s action on defendants’ terms. In such circumstances Special Term ought not to have permitted the defenses and counterclaims under attack to be pleaded, since a trial of the issues they raise with those created by the complaint would only tend to unduly prejudice a fair trial of plaintiff’s cause of action.

Accordingly, the order appealed from should be modified by permitting service of the proposed amended answer from which paragraphs sixteenth to thirty-sixth, inclusive, have been deleted, and as so modified affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Settle order.

Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously modified by permitting service of the proposed amended answer from which paragraphs sixteenth to thirty-sixth, inclusive, have been deleted and, as so modified affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Settle order on notice.
### **CHAPTER 61—UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BUILDING AND GROUNDS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL

Sec.
6101.
Definitions and application.
6102.
Regulations.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

6111.
Supreme Court Building.
6112.
Supreme Court Building and grounds employees.
6113.
Duties of the Superintendent of the Supreme Court Building.
6114.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Garden.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—POLICING AUTHORITY

6121.
General.
6122.
Designation of members of the Supreme Court Police.
6123.
Authority of Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES

6131.
Public travel in Supreme Court grounds.
6132.
Sale of articles, signs, and solicitation in Supreme Court Building and grounds.
6133.
Property in the Supreme Court Building and grounds.
6134.
Firearms, fireworks, speeches, and objectionable language in the Supreme Court Building and grounds.
6135.
Parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme Court Building and grounds.
6136.
Suspension of prohibitions against use of Supreme Court grounds.
6137.
Penalties.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3785 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3785

 To repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
                           Fiscal Year 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2012

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
                           Fiscal Year 2012.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SECTION 1021 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 
              ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012.

    Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
§ 142.2 Policy. ( a ) The Commission may indemnify its employees by the payment of available funds, in whole, or in part, for any verdict, judgment or other monetary award which is rendered against any employee, provided that the conduct giving rise to the verdict, judgment or award was taken within the scope of his or her employment with the Commission and that such indemnification is in the interest of the United States, as determined by the Commission.
( b ) The Commission may settle or compromise a personal damage claim against its employee by the payment of available funds, at any time, provided the alleged conduct giving rise to the personal damage claim was taken within the scope of employment and that such settlement is in the interest of the United States as determined by the Commission in its discretion.
( c ) Absent exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Commission, the Commission will not entertain a request either to agree to indemnify or to settle a personal damage claim before entry of an adverse verdict, judgment or monetary award.
( d ) When an employee of the Commission becomes aware that an action may be or has been filed against the employee in his or her individual capacity as a result of conduct taken within the scope of his or her employment, the employee should immediately notify the Commission's Office of the General Counsel that such an action is pending or threatened.
( e ) The employee may thereafter request either ( 1 ) indemnification to satisfy a verdict, judgment or award entered against the employee or
( 2 ) payment to satisfy the requirements of a settlement proposal. The employee shall submit a written request, with documentation including copies of the verdict, judgment, award or settlement proposal, as appropriate, to the head of his or her division or office, who thereupon shall submit to the General Counsel, in a timely manner, a recommended disposition of the request. The General Counsel shall also seek the views of the Department of Justice. The General Counsel shall forward the request, the division or office's recommendation and the General Counsel's recommendation to the Commission for decision.
( f ) Any payment under this section either to indemnify a Commodity Futures Trading Commission employee or to settle a personal damage claim shall be contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
[54 FR 25234, June 14, 1989, as amended at 89 FR 71816, Sept. 4, 2024]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26382]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4901-N-49]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: November 24, 2004.
Mark R. Johnston,
Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.
[FR Doc. 04-26382 Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED

I, Robert H. Turner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Catcher Holdings, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 12, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert H. Turner   
|                        |  |  |  | Robert H. Turner       
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Alan Mickens, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 676]

*1129Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 31, 2004, which, inter alia, awarded workers’ compensation benefits, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed August 10, 2004, which denied claimant’s application for reconsideration and/or full Board review.

Claimant suffered injuries in a work-related accident in 1993 and thereafter filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Claimant received benefits at various rates over the next several years. In 2003, claimant and the employer entered into a stipulation agreement which, among other things, increased the amount of the weekly awards paid to claimant from September 1994 to November 2001 and set the amount of his future weekly awards. Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) approved the stipulation and entered a decision incorporating it. The decision also awarded counsel fees in the amount of $7,250. Upon claimant’s appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Board, the decision was upheld, prompting him to take this appeal arguing that the stipulation was not valid, he was not adequately represented throughout the proceedings and the amount of the counsel fees awarded was excessive. Claimant also appeals from the Board’s decision denying his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review.

A stipulation of facts or proposed findings is binding upon the parties where, as here, a WCLJ approves it after verifying through questioning that each party has been advised of the legal effect of the agreement and has signed it voluntarily (see 12 NYCRR 300.5 [b]; see *also Matter of Dukes v Capitol Formation,*213 AD2d 756, 757 [1995], *lv dismissed*86 NY2d 810 [1995], *appeal dismissed*87 NY2d 891 [1995]). In light of claimant’s documented psychological impairments, we observe that the WCLJ took the additional step of ensuring that claimant’s cousin had discussed the stipulation with claimant and agreed to it. The record reflects that claimant was represented by competent counsel who worked diligently for him for at least three years, participated in several hearings and ultimately settled the matter. Inasmuch as the Board is vested with broad discretion in approving counsel fees and the *1130challenged, decision indicates that the Board considered the quality and nature of counsel’s representation in upholding the award, we will not disturb it *(see Matter of Pavone v Ambassador Transp., Inc.,*26 AD3d 645, 646-647 [2006]; *Matter of Donhauser v McLane Northeast,*304 AD2d 1017, 1018 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 514 [2003]). Finally, there being no evidence of any fraud, collusion, mistake or other good cause why the Board should reconsider or conduct a full Board review of the decision, the Board’s denial of claimant’s request for such action was not an abuse of discretion *(see Matter of Dukes v Capitol Formation, supra*at 757).

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIMMY D. BIZZELL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND JUVENILE DETENTION, AKA RJC, Maleng Regional Justice Center,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 36031

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 00401

- JLR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY , WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jimmy D. Bizzell, a former pretrial detainee , appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his inability to access religious services, meals,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 3 4(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 36031

and head coverings . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Albino v. Baca

, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168

- 71 (summar y judgment i s proper

procedural vehicle for determining exhaustion). We affirm.

Summ ary judgment was proper because Bizzell failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative

remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him

.

See Ross v. Blake , 136 S. C t

. 18 50, 1858

- 60 (2016) (describing limited

circumstances under which administrative r emedies are deemed unavailable );

Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93

- 95 (2006) (holding that proper exhaustion is

mandatory) ; see also Lira v. Herrer a, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9 th Cir. 2005) (“[A]

district court must dismiss a case without prejudice when there is no presuit

exhaustion, even if there is exhaustion while suit is pending.” ( citation and internal

quotati on marks omitted))

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
February 11, 2011





Mr. Darryl Horne, President/CEO


Horne International, Inc.


3975 University Drive, Suite 100


Fairfax, VA 22030





Dear Darryl,





We are pleased that you have selected United Capital Funding Corp. to serve your professional funding needs. We look forward to helping your Company grow and prosper. At United Capital Funding, we pride ourselves on our open communication between our clients and our team of professional staff. Please feel free to call us at any time with any questions that you may have on your relationship. We have attached to this letter several very important documents which taken together, largely reflect the economic and legal relationship between our companies. We have presented a summary of the major business aspects of the Agreements below.





•Maximum Amount of Facility; $500,000.


•Initial/Periodic Factoring Fee; .425%/.425%.


•Factoring Fee Period; 5 days


•Purchase Price; 80% of Face Amount.


•Reserve Percentage; 20%


•Minimum Volume Requirement; $0.


•Term of Agreement, 1 year(s) from February 11, 2011.





Please ensure that you review all of the attached documents carefully, and if necessary, please have your Attorney or accountant review them with you. Please also feel free to call us at any time with any questions that you may have. We would ask that you sign the bottom of this Letter along with the attached documents, and return a copy to us, along with the attached Agreements.





Respectfully yours,





United Capital Funding Corp., a Florida Corporation


Date: 2/11/2011 11:43:25 AM





For: Horne International, Inc.By:Darryl Horne, President/CEO
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 89 FR 71805, Sept. 4, 2024.

#### §§ 1.44-1.45 [Reserved]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3621 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain adjustable metal lighting fixtures. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2011 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain adjustable metal 

lighting fixtures. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ADJUSTABLE METAL LIGHTING FIX4 TURES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3621 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Adjustable metal lighting fixtures, with a parabolic or ellipsoidal reflector, each capable of being focused and with 

a color-media holder, the 

lamp enclosure in a U-shaped 

mounting yoke allowing 360 

degree rotation on an axis 

perpendicular to the projection path of the light and 

with plastic-covered locking 

handle and clutch mechanism 

intended to allow adjustment 

of the fixture in multiple directions and to lock the fixture for prolonged use, the 

foregoing whether for mounting with a c-clamp to a pipe 

or with any other suitable 

hanging mechanism for 

mounting to a structurally 

sound surface capable of supporting the fixture (provided 

for in subheading 

9405.40.60) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2014 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

5 (c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding 

6 section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) 

7 or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed 

8 with U.S. Customs and Border Protection before the 90th 

9 day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, 

10 or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any ar11 ticle— 

12 (1) that was made on or after January 1, 2011, 

13 and before the 15th day after the date of the enact14 ment of this Act, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3621 IH

1 (2) with respect to which there would have been 

2 no duty if the amendment made by subsection (a) 

3 applied to such entry or withdrawal, 

4 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such amendment 

5 applied to such entry or withdrawal. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

#### § 200.19e Director of the Office of Credit Ratings.

The Director of the Office of Credit Ratings is responsible to the Commission for the administration and execution of the Commission's programs under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the registration and regulation of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations. The functions involved in the regulation of such entities include compliance inspections and examinations, recommending the adoption and amendment of Commission rules, and responding to interpretive and no-action requests.

[86 FR 9442, Feb. 16, 2021]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation on Radioactive Materials Transportation Security.

Accession Number: ML16074A004

Date Released: Monday, March 14, 2016

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML15057A336 - Memorandum of Understanding Among the Department of Homeland Security, the  Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Concerning Cooperation on Radioactive Materials Transportation (7 page(s), 1/17/2015)
    - ML13240A347 - MOU Topical Areas. (4 page(s), 1/17/2015)
    - ML13240A350 - MOU Points of Contact. (2 page(s), 1/17/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer