alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
",

...../ I:

ST Joseph's

ADDICTION TREATMfNi

G. RECOVERY CENTERS

October 24, 2013

Bob Bevilacqua, Town Supervisor

Dear Bob,

I am writing to indicate my strong support for expanded essential air service from the Adirondack

Regional Airport to New York City.

As the CEO of St. Joseph's Addiction Treatment and Recovery Centers with a staff of approximately 140,

and as Board President of the Homeward Bound Adirondacks, an emerging non-profit Veterans Support

Organization, it is clear to me that direct service between Saranac lake and New York City would directly

enhance Saranac Lake as a professional and recreational destination, which could also expand Saranac

Lake's commercial base.

Currently, the options for travel to the city involve a two and a half hour car ride to Albany followed by

an additional two and a half hour train ride, or a two hour drive to Burlington International Airport. In

both cases the need to shift from one transportation mode to the other involves significant additional

total time between points.

I can speak from direct experience that additional professional meetings and conferences in the TriLakes area would be significantly facilitated by such direct air transportation resulting in additional

economic benefit -lodging, restaurants, shopping and other recreational activities. Myself and other St.

Joseph's staff would utilize a direct route between Saranac Lake and NYC, as would individuals visiting

st. Joseph's service locations in the Adirondack Region.

In conversations with business leaders and heads of major not-for-profit organizations in the Tri-Lakes

area I believe there is a consensus that the success of the Saranac Lake - Boston daily flight schedule

would be replicated with a Saranac Lake - NYC schedule. Increased, reliable and efficient transportation

between Saranac Lake and major population centers will prove to be of significant economic

development advantage to the region.

Robert A. Ross

President/CEO

~. ! . I', .:
### §212b. Repealed. Apr. 27, 1956, ch. 211, §5(d), 70 Stat. 117

Section, act July 31, 1953, ch. 296, title II, §201, 67 Stat. 254, authorized recall of retired officers of the Service. See section 212(c) of this title.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10199 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RACKSTRAW ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 149

- 1

Before K ING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Robert Christopher
Rackstraw has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rackstraw h a s not file d a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10199 Document: 00512871288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2014No. 14

- 10199

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-10199 Document: 00512871288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2014
#### Zoya Ismailova, Appellant, v Shalimar Leasing LP et al., Respondents.

[820 NYS2d 889]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 29, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the defendants’ prima facie showing that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition on the pathway where the plaintiff tripped and fell *(see Thomas v Phillips,*246 AD2d 531 [1998]). Crane, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
### §283o. Next generation of researchers

#### (a) Next generation of researchers initiative

There shall be established within the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Next Generation of Researchers Initiative (referred to in this section as the "Initiative"), through which the Director shall coordinate all policies and programs within the National Institutes of Health that are focused on promoting and providing opportunities for new researchers and earlier research independence.

#### (b) Activities

The Director of the National Institutes of Health, through the Initiative shall—

(1) promote policies and programs within the National Institutes of Health that are focused on improving opportunities for new researchers and promoting earlier research independence, including existing policies and programs, as appropriate;

(2) develop, modify, or prioritize policies, as needed, within the National Institutes of Health to promote opportunities for new researchers and earlier research independence, such as policies to increase opportunities for new researchers to receive funding, enhance training and mentorship programs for researchers, and enhance workforce diversity;

(3) coordinate, as appropriate, with relevant agencies, professional and academic associations, academic institutions, and others, to improve and update existing information on the biomedical research workforce in order to inform programs related to the training, recruitment, and retention of biomedical researchers; and

(4) carry out other activities, including evaluation and oversight of existing programs, as appropriate, to promote the development of the next generation of researchers and earlier research independence.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §404M, as added Pub. L. 114–255, div. A, title II, §2021(a), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1051.)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2509

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for capital gains 

treatment for certain termination payments received by former insurance 

salesmen. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2003

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas 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 provide 

for capital gains treatment for certain termination payments received by former insurance salesmen.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Tax Treatment 

5 for Insurance Agents’ Termination Payments Act of 

6 2003’’. 
2

•HR 2509 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CAPITAL GAINS TREATMENT OF QUALIFIED TERMI2 NATION PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY FORMER 

3 INSURANCE SALESMEN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part IV of subchapter P of chap5 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

6 by adding at the end the following new section: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 1261. QUALIFIED TERMINATION PAYMENTS RE8 CEIVED BY FORMER INSURANCE SALESMEN. 

9 ‘‘(a) GENERAL.—A qualified termination payment re10 ceived during the taxable year from an insurance company 

11 by an individual in the capacity of a former insurance 

12 salesman for such company shall be considered a sale or 

13 exchange of a capital asset held for more than 12 months. 

14 ‘‘(b) QUALIFIED TERMINATION PAYMENT.—For pur15 poses of this section, the term ‘qualified termination pay16 ment’ means any amount received by a former insurance 

17 salesman if—

18 ‘‘(1) such amount is received after termination 

19 of such individual’s agreement to perform services as 

20 an insurance salesman for such company, 

21 ‘‘(2) such individual performs no services for 

22 such company after such termination and before the 

23 close of such taxable year, 

24 ‘‘(3) such individual enters into a covenant not 

25 to compete against such company which applies to at 
3

•HR 2509 IH 

1 least the 1-year period beginning on the date of such 

2 termination, and 

3 ‘‘(4) the amount of such payment depends pri4 marily on policies sold by or credited to the account 

5 of such individual or the extent to which such poli6 cies remain in force for some period after such ter7 mination, or both.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 for such part IV is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new item:

‘‘Sec. 1261. Qualified termination payments received by former 

insurance salesmen.’’

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

13 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Order entered November 29 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 01050

- CV

WENG ONG , Appellant

V.

LORENZO BROWN , Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 20

- 00039

- A

O RDER Appellant has notified the Court that she has requested preparation of the reporter’s record. Appellant is indigent and allowed to proceed without payment of costs. Accordingly, we O RDER Cathye Moreno, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 1, to file the reporter’s record on or before December
29 , 2022

. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Moreno and all parties.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4327 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recognize tinnitus as a mandatory condition for research and treatment by the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2012 

Mr. MICHAUD (for himself, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. 

JONES, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, and Mr. MCGOVERN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recognize 

tinnitus as a mandatory condition for research and treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tinnitus Research and 

5 Treatment Act of 2012’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4327 IH

1 SEC. 2. RECOGNITION AND TREATMENT OF TINNITUS AT 

2 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AUDI3 TORY CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE. 

4 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall recognize 

5 tinnitus as a mandatory condition for research and treat6 ment by the Department of Veterans Affairs Auditory 

7 Centers of Excellence. 

8 SEC. 3. RESEARCH ON PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF 

9 TINNITUS. 

10 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure that 

11 research is conducted at Department of Veterans Affairs 

12 facilities on the prevention and treatment of tinnitus. Such 

13 research shall include— 

14 (1) an assessment of the efficacy of different 

15 tinnitus treatment modalities on different subsets of 

16 patients; 

17 (2) studies on the underlying etiology of 

18 tinnitus in veteran populations that occur as a result 

19 of different causal factors, including blast-related 

20 tinnitus versus other forms of noise-induced tinnitus; 

21 and 

22 (3) a study of the causal effects between hear23 ing loss and tinnitus, including cases in which one 

24 or the other condition is present, but not both. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4327 IH

1 SEC. 4. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COOPERATION. 

2 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure the 

3 cooperation of the Department of Veterans Affairs with 

4 the Hearing Center of Excellence established by the De5 partment of Defense to further research on tinnitus. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
539.001 Applicability.       (a)In accordance with FAR 39.001, this part does not apply to acquisitions of information or information systems in support of national security systems. Refer to subpart 504.4 for guidance for any procurements that may involve access to classified information or a classified information system. See subpart 507.70 for guidance for purchases in support of national security systems involving weapons systems.                                          (b)Refer to 504.1370 and 542.302 for additional requirements for individual access management (i.e., HSPD-12) to GSA Information Systems.                                          (c)Refer to 511.170 for additional requirements for GSA Information Systems.    **Parent topic:** Part 539 - Acquisition of Information Technology
#### German American Coffee Company v. John O’Neil.

Motion for leave to appeal granted; questions certified. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### § 1008.115 Does this part affect the Federal contracts that I receive?

It will affect future contract awards indirectly if you are debarred or suspended for a violation of the requirements of this part, as described in § 1008.510(c). However, this part does not apply directly to procurement contracts. The portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 that applies to Federal procurement contracts is carried out through the Federal Acquisition Regulation in chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (the drug-free workplace coverage currently is in 48 CFR part 23, subpart 23.5).
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals hereby passes

the followi

ng order: A14A1347 . LEVERETT v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N. A. This appeal w as dockete d on March 20, 2014 and App ellant’ s brief w as due for filingon April

9, 201 4. Cou rt of Ap peals Rule 2 3 (a). B ased u pon Ap pell ant’s failure to file any brie f in this ca se, this ap peal is her eby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify that th e above is a t rue extract f

rom the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Wi tnes s my signature a nd the seal of said cour t hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en. , Clerk. 07/29/2014 July 29, 2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Howard Ray, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 17, 1976, which granted defendant-respondent’s oral motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute. Order reversed, on the law, and indictment reinstated. By statute, a motion to dismiss an indictment must be made in writing and upon notice to the People (CPL 210.45, subd 1; see, also, *People v Pichkur,*52 AD2d 852; *People v Ryan,*42 AD2d 869; *People v Trottie,*47 AD2d 751). The failure to comply with this requirement, unless consented to by the District Attorney, is reversible error (see *People v Rao,*53 AD2d 904; *People v Orr,*53 AD2d 634; *People v Smith,*53 AD2d 652). In this case the District Attorney opposed the application. Furthermore, the basic speedy-trial contention of defendant lacks merit. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Frederick D. Wiley, Respondent, v Jerry C. Hiller, as City Manager of City of Watertown, et al., Appellants.

[716 NYS2d 226]

—Judgment unanimously vacated, determination confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in annulling respondent City Manager’s determination to terminate petitioner’s General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits on the ground that respondents should have commenced an action in Supreme *1025Court to terminate such benefits. “While the General Municipal Law does not provide an administrative framework for making disability determinations, courts have long recognized the appropriateness of administrative hearings for that purpose” *(Matter of Giorgio v Bucci,*267 AD2d 924). Rather, the court should have transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g).

We conclude that the City Manager’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, despite the existence of evidence to support a contrary result *(see generally, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 179-180). The City Manager’s determination wás properly based upon petitioner’s submissions to the United States Coast Guard, including the statement of petitioner that he was operating a boat “for hire” while he was receiving benefits. The existence of “other evidence (even the greater weight of the evidence) supporting an opposing determination merely created a credibility issue for the [City Manager’s] determination in the exercise of [his] exclusive fact-finding authority” *(Matter of Eisner,*252 AD2d 847, 848, *appeal dismissed*92 NY2d 946; *see, Matter of Westney,*262 AD2d 894, 896).

Because the court determined that respondents must commence a civil action, it did not address petitioner’s remaining contentions. We conclude, however, that those contentions lack merit. Petitioner contends that he was denied due process at the administrative hearing. We disagree. Petitioner had “a meaningful opportunity to present evidence on his behalf and cross-examine opposing witnesses” *(Matter of Furch v Bucci,*245 AD2d 749, 750, *lv dismissed*91 NY2d 953). Petitioner further contends that General Municipal Law § 207-a (6) does not apply to a retired firefighter. Petitioner continued to receive General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits in addition to his disability retirement benefits, however, and General Municipal Law § 207-a (6) applies to “[a]ny fireman receiving payments or benefits pursuant to [section 207-a].” (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2019 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2019-3, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





1. CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.





3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2022 and ending on February 28, 2023 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.








Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 26th day of May, 2023.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President and Treasurer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rudolph Trumpler, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered June 5, 1975, convicting the defendant, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him as a predicate felon to an indeterminate term of from 3 to 6 years, with the recommendation that the sentence run concurrently with a Federal prison term now being served, unanimously modified as a matter of discretion and in the interest of justice, to the extent that said indeterminate term of from 3 to 6 years shall be concurrent with the Federal 15-year term for bank robbery now being served, and otherwise affirmed. At the time of the sentence, a concurrent term with a Federal sentence was not permissible under section 70.25 of the Penal Law. (See *People v Schatz,*45 AD2d 853.) The section has since been modified to allow such action, and accordingly, on the recommendation of the sentencing court and on the consent of the People, the sentence shall be concurrent. *(People v Mosley,*55 AD2d 891.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lupiano and Lane, JJ.
### §247c–2. Data collection regarding programs under subchapter XXIV

For the purpose of collecting and providing data for program planning and evaluation activities under subchapter XXIV, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary (acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Such authorization of appropriations is in addition to other authorizations of appropriations that are available for such purpose.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §318B, as added Pub. L. 106–345, title IV, §412, Oct. 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 1350.)
#### § 1509.301 [Reserved]
#### Concetta Redino, Appellant, v. Nicholas J. Redino et al., Respondents.

Motion granted and appellant’s time for argument of appeal extended to include January 1961 Term.