alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Curry, Petitioner, v Brian Wing, as Commissioner of New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 6]

—Determination of respondent New York State Department of Health dated December 13, 1999 which, after a fair hearing, *38denied petitioner’s application for 24-hour continuous home care services by two aides on a “split-shift” basis under the State’s Medical Assistance Program, and, instead, granted 24-hour home care services by one aide on a “sleep-in” basis, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Kibbie Payne, J.], entered May 3, 2000) dismissed, without costs.

The City’s Fair Hearing Compliance Notice dated April 10, 1997 was not constitutionally inadequate as petitioner contends. The notice adequately apprised petitioner of the legal burden facing him at the hearing, to wit, that he had to prove that his needs were not being met with 24-hour “sleep-in” care and could only be met with the “split-shift” care he requested.

The petitioner appeared *pro se*at the administrative hearing, and the documentation he presented from his physician did not specifically recommend “split-shift” care. The agency found that 24-hour “sleep-in” care was adequate to meet the petitioner’s needs, based upon an agency Nurse’s Assessment, an agency Home Care Social Assessment, and an Affiliation Report completed by an HRA-affiliated physician, all recommending that “sleep-in” care be continued. The decision after fair hearing concluded that the petitioner did not have excessive, unscheduled nighttime needs necessitating “split-shift” care.

Albeit belatedly, in support of the instant article 78 petition, petitioner’s treating physician and a visiting nurse elaborated on the degree of petitioner’s disability. Both affirmed that petitioner is a tetraplegic, insulin dependent individual who requires repositioning every two hours during the day and night to prevent chronic decubitus ulcers (pressure sores). He is also an insulin dependant diabetic prone to episodes of low blood sugar requiring injections throughout the night. Both opined that petitioner’s condition required “split-shift” care.

We are constrained to follow the precedent set forth by the Court of Appeals. In *Kuppersmith v Dowling*(93 NY2d 90), that Court held that the applicable regulations do not require that the agency follow the treating physician’s recommended amount of services. Further, in *Matter of Howard v Wyman (28*NY2d 434, 438), the Court of Appeals held that the agency’s determination is entitled to deference by the court because it rests on the agency’s interpretation and construction of its own regulations and the legislation under which it functions. Accordingly, we find that the agency’s determination authorizing 24 hour “sleep-in” care was not arbitrary and capricious and *39that it is supported by substantial evidence. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.
NICHOLAS “NICO” LAHOOD

Criminal District Attorney

Bexar County, Texas 

August 4, 2015 

 

Honorable Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

RE: John Christopher Dominguez v. The State of Texas 

 Cause No. 04-13-00789-CR

Dear Mr. Acosta: 

The State has received a copy of the Petition for Discretionary Review filed by the 

Appellant in this matter. The State waives its right to respond to the Petition for 

Discretionary Review. However, if the Court grants the Petition, the State will file a brief 

on the merits. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to call. 

Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Laura Durbin 

LAURA DURBIN 

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County, Texas 

Paul Elizondo Tower 

101 W. Nueva 

(210) 335-2411 

S.B.N. 24068556 

cc: Patrick B. Montgomery 

 Attorney at Law 

 111 Soledad 

 San Antonio, Texas 78205 

 

Attorney for the State 

PD-0522-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 8/3/2015 3:30:43 PM

Accepted 8/3/2015 3:41:05 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
#### § 1500.1 Purpose and scope.

The purpose of this part is to effectuate the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act. These procedures apply to meetings of the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation.
Exhibit 10.41
**Amendment #1 to Employee Services Agreement**
     THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) by and between GlobaleXchange Services, Inc. (“GXS”) and G International, Inc. (“G International”)
**RECITALS**
A. GXS and G International are parties to an Employee Services Agreement, effective as of November1, 2004 (the “Agreement”) pursuant to which GXS provides certain managements and professionalservices to G International. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendmenthave the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.
B. The parties desire to set forth their agreement with respect to the modification of theAgreement to extend the term thereof as set forth in this Amendment.
**AGREEMENTS**
     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the agreements contained herein, theEmployee Services Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. Term. Section 6.08 of the Agreement is hereby modified to provide that, theAgreement is hereby extended through the end of the Payroll Period ending June 30, 2005, unlesssooner terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party orby the mutual written consent of the parties.
Section 2. Miscellaneous.
     2.1 Integration. This Amendment embodies the entire understanding of the partieshereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supercedes all prior negotiations,understandings and agreements among them with respect thereto. The provisions of this Amendmentmay be waived, supplemented or amended only by an instrument in writing signed by each of Licensorand Licensee.
     2.2 Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which whenso executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constituteone and the same instrument.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment to be executed anddelivered on its behalf by its duly authorized representative effective as of the date set forthbelow.   GLOBAL EXCHANGE SERVICES, INC. G INTERNATIONAL, INC.   By: /s/ Ann Addison By: /s/ Tom ThomasName: Ann Addison Name: Tom ThomasTitle: VP, Human Resources Title: President, GMDate: May 3, 2005 Date: May 2, 2005
#### Davinder PAUL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71862.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*507Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 15, 2007.

Helen A. Sklar, Esq., Kari E. Hong, Law Office of Helen Sklar, Esq., Los An-geles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alison Marie Igoe, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Davinder Paul, a citizen and native of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) and review the denial of motions to reopen for an abuse of discretion. *See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Paul’s motion to reopen for ineffective assistance of counsel as untimely and in refusing to apply equitable tolling to the time limit. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 898 (9th Cir.2003) (time for filing a motion to reopen may be equitable tolled when petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §2455. Repealed or Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 85–568, title III, §304(a), (b), July 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 433, 434; 1978 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §102, eff. Jan. 1, 1979, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783, related to security requirements.

Subsec. (a) was repealed by Pub. L. 111–314, §6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3444. See section 20132 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.

Subsec. (b) was transferred and is set out as a note under section 20132 of Title 51.
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CLAIMS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT MOVED FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION 1

Case No.: 3:08-CV-01190 SI 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BURNHAM BROWN 

Robert M. Bodzin, State Bar No. 201327 

P.O. Box 119 

Oakland, CA 94604 

Telephone: (510) 835-6833 

Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 

rbodzin@BurnhamBrown.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

[Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CLAUDE BRYANT, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other employees and former 

employees similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

SERVICE CORPORATION 

INTERNATIONAL et al. 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-01190 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSSING 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE CLAIMS FOR 

WHICH PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT 

MOVED FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 

 Pursuant to the Stipulation of counsel and good cause appearing, the Court hereby 

GRANTS the parties’ request and orders that Plaintiffs’ proposed Third Amended Complaint is 

hereby adopted and further orders that those claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 

Complaint on which Plaintiffs have not moved for certification in their Motion for Class 

Certification filed in June 18, 2010 are dismissed without prejudice, effective 45 days from the 

date of this Order. 

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 317 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CLAIMS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT MOVED FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION 2

Case No.: 3:08-CV-01190 SI 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

 

 

AGREED TO: 

By: /s/ Annette Gifford 

J. Nelson Thomas (pro hac vice) 

Patrick J. Solomon (pro hac vice) 

Annette Gifford (pro hac vice) 

THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 

693 East Avenue 

Rochester, NY 14607 

Telephone: 585-272-0540 

Facsimile: 585-272-0574 

 Robert M. Bodzin, State Bar No. 201327 

BURNHAM BROWN 

P.O. Box 119 

Oakland, CA 94604 

Telephone: (510) 835-6833 

Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 

Charles H. Saul (pro hac vice) 

Liberty J. Weyandt (pro hac vice 

pending) 

Kyle T. McGee (pro hac vice) 

MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 

525 William Penn Place 

Suite 3300 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Telephone: 412-281-4256 

Facsimile: 412-642-2380 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Honorable Susan Illston 

United States District Court 

By: /s/ Nicholas P. Forestiere 

Steven H. Gurnee 

Nicholas P. Forestiere 

John A. Mason 

 GURNEE & DANIELS LLP 

2240 Douglas Blvd, Suite 150 

Roseville, CA 95648 

Telephone: 916-797-3100 

Facsimile: 916-797-3131 

Counsel for Defendants 

 

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 317 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3438

_____________________________
J AMARL W. V AUGHAN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court fo r Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

. February 6, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , R OWE , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.33 1

.

_____________________________2 Jamarl W. Vaughn, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg
, Assistant Att or ney General , Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Fr o Se n To : Su b Th e e m lb m da t El e

-- De n Gro u 132 5 Dir e Gr o ww w o m: Dennis J o n t: T hursday , : CommPk g A C bj ect: Dock e e Rules do n m issions per u

m CO2/kWh t abase. e ctric Resist a

n nis Jones, PE, u p 14 Engineerin 5 East 16th Ave n e ct: 720-221-107 9 o up 14 is th e w .group14eng.c o o nes
, September 2 C HP2013STD 0 e t Number EE n ot prohibit o u nit of heat i for Xcel En e
a nce Heatin g

LEED AP, Cx A g, Inc. - Inspir i n ue, Denver, Co 9 / Mobile: 720- 9 e Carbon G r o m 2 5, 2014 11: 3 0

007 RE–2013–BT – o r discoura g i ng and cool e rgy of Col o g is equival e

i ng better buil d lorado 80218 9 88-6725 r oup on the p 3 0:22 AM (U T

– STD–0007 g e the use of

ing energy d o rado, for a v
e nt to using i

d

ing s . p eriodic tab T C-05:00) Ea s

Electric Re s d elivered to a v erage HVA C i ncandescen t

le s tern Time ( U

s istance He a an occupie d C equipmen t t lighting, a n U S & Canada)

a ting. The c h d space, usin g

tperforman c
n d should b e h art indicate s g the avera g c e from the A
e discourage s the CO2 g e

A HRI d.
### §1962c–2. State programs; approval by Council; submission; requirements; notice and hearing prior to disapproval

The Council shall approve any program for comprehensive water and related land resources planning which is submitted by a State, if such program—

(1) provides for comprehensive planning with respect to intrastate or interstate water resources, or both, in such State to meet the needs for water and water-related activities taking into account prospective demands for all purposes served through or affected by water and related land resources development, with adequate provision for coordination with all Federal, State, and local agencies, and nongovernmental entities having responsibilities in affected fields;

(2) provides, where comprehensive statewide development planning is being carried on with or without assistance under section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 1 or under chapter 2003 of title 54, for full coordination between comprehensive water resources planning and other statewide planning programs and for assurances that such water resources planning will be in conformity with the general development policy in such State;

(3) designates a State agency (hereinafter referred to as the "State agency") to administer the program;

(4) provides that the State agency will make such reports in such form and containing such information as the Council from time to time reasonably requires to carry out its functions under this subchapter;

(5) sets forth the procedure to be followed in carrying out the State program and in administering such program; and

(6) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal methods and procedures as are necessary for keeping appropriate accountability of the funds and for the proper and efficient administration of the program.

The Council shall not disapprove any program without first giving reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State agency administering such program.

(Pub. L. 89–80, title III, §303, July 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 252; Pub. L. 113–287, §5(k)(1), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3269.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, referred to in par. (2), is section 701 of act Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, 68 Stat. 640, which was classified to section 461 of former Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, and was repealed by Pub. L. 97–35, title III, §313(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 398.

#### Amendments

2014—Par. (2). Pub. L. 113–287 substituted "chapter 2003 of title 54" for "the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965".

1 See References in Text note below.
#### Norman M. Obedin, Doing Business as N. M. Obedin Company, Respondent, v. Frank Olish, Appellant.

In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, order denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment, and granting respondent’s cross motion for leave to serve a bill of particulars, to examine appellant and to add a party plaintiff, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur; Adel, Acting P. J., and Wenzel, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order and to grant appellant’s motion for summary judgment and to deny respondent’s motion, with the following memorandum: Against the appellant’s showing on the motion for summary judgment, respondent has failed to set forth evidentiary matter showing that he produced a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase on the terms described by appellant, or that there was a meeting of the minds between the seller and purchasers on all the essential terms of an agreement of sale and purchase. [See *post,*p. 875.]
§ 213.23 Salary offset when USAID is not the creditor Agency. ( a ) USAID will use salary offset against one of its employees that is indebted to another agency if requested to do so by that agency. Such a request must be accompanied by a certification by the requesting agency that the person owes the debt (including the amount) and that the procedural requirements of 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 5 CFR part 550, subpart K, have been met. The creditor Agency must also advise USAID of the number of installments to be collected, the amount of each installment, and the commencement date of the first installment, if a date other than the next established pay period.
( b ) *Requests to USAID by another Agency to offset salary.* Requests for salary offset must be sent to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, United States Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, USAID Annex, Room 8.80D, Washington, DC 20523-4601.
( c ) *Processing of the claim by USAID* — ( 1 ) *Incomplete claims.* If USAID receives an improperly completed request, the requesting (creditor) Agency will be requested to supply the required information before any salary offset can be taken.
( 2 ) *Complete claims.* If the claim procedures in paragraph (a) of this section have been properly completed, deduction will begin on the next established pay period. USAID will not review the merits of the creditor Agency's determinations with respect to the amount or validity of the debt as stated in the debt claim form. USAID will not assess a handling or any other related charge to cover the cost of its processing the claim.
( d ) *Employees separating from USAID before a debt to another agency is collected* — ( 1 ) *Employees separating from Government service.* If an employee begins separation action before USAID collects the total debt due the creditor Agency, the following actions will be taken: ( i ) To the extent possible, the balance owed the creditor Agency will be liquidated from subsequent payments of any nature due the employee from USAID in accordance with § 213.22;
( ii ) If the total amount of the debt cannot be recovered, USAID will certify to the creditor Agency and the employee the total amount of USAID's collection; and
( iii ) If USAID is aware that the employee is entitled to payments from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the Foreign Service Retirement Fund, or other similar payments, it will provide such information to the creditor Agency so that it can file a certified claim against the payments.
( 2 ) *Employees who transfer to another Federal agency.* If an USAID employee transfers to another Federal agency before USAID collects the total amount due the creditor Agency, USAID will certify the total amount of the collection made on the debt. It is the responsibility of the creditor Agency to ensure that the collection is resumed by the new employing agency.
[67 FR 47258, July 18, 2002, as amended at 86 FR 31144, June 11, 2021]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4255 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4255

 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
  from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other 
  financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any 
 program, project, or activity to occur outside the United States and 
                    its territories and possessions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2012

   Mr. Whitfield (for himself, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Barrow, Mr. 
Sullivan, Mr. Coble, Mr. Carter, Mr. Griffith of Virginia, Mr. Harris, 
   Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Long, Mr. Cravaack, Mr. Latta, Mr. Burgess, Mr. 
McKinley, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Pompeo, 
Mr. Westmoreland, and Mr. Brooks) introduced the following bill; which 
 was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 
to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 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 prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
  from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other 
  financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any 
 program, project, or activity to occur outside the United States and 
                    its territories and possessions.

    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 ``Accountability in Grants Act of 
2012''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING CERTAIN FOREIGN PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, 
              AND ACTIVITIES.

    Section 103 of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(l) Prohibition Against Funding Foreign Programs, Projects, and 
Activities.--The Administrator shall not award any grant, contract, 
cooperative agreement, or other financial assistance under this section 
for any program, project, or activity to occur outside the United 
States and its territories and possessions.''.
                                 <all>
```