alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Caristo Construction Corp., Respondent, v Board of Education of the City of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

In an action *inter alia*to declare that the insurance policy furnished by plaintiff complied with the requirements of a construction contract between plaintiff and the defendant Board of Education of the City of New York (the board), and to direct the defendants Comptroller and Finance Administrator of the City of New York to process and pay plaintiffs requisitions, the said defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 3, 1976, which is in favor of plaintiff and against them, upon an order of the same court which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as against them. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion for summary judgment denied. The essential nature of this action is to compel payment of moneys due the plaintiff, which moneys have been withheld by the Comptroller of the City of New York pursuant to article 49 of a construction contract between plaintiff and the board. Article 49 generally provides that, if any claim is made against the board for any act or omission of the plaintiff, then the comptroller may withhold moneys due the plaintiff, as security against such claim, until the final adjudication thereof by a court of competent jurisdiction. At present, an appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in which the appellants herein are appealing from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which, after a jury trial, found them to be liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff therein, when a fence surrounding the construction site collapsed. A cross claim against the plaintiff herein was dismissed on jurisdic*940tional grounds. The jury returned a general verdict and therefore it is impossible to determine whether the verdict was against the board and city directly, because the fence had been negligently designed, or against them vicariously, because the fence had been negligently erected or maintained. If the board and city were held vicariously liable, then there is a claim against the board for an act or omission of the plaintiff, and the comptroller was entitled to withhold the moneys due it. Article 49 contains broad language and places absolute discretion in the comptroller. Even under a narrow construction, this clause entitles the comptroller to withhold moneys whenever a claim is made against the board which may be attributed to the negligence of the plaintiff. The action now pending in the Federal court satisfies these minimal requirements. Therefore, the judgment of Special Term must be reversed. Hopkins, J. P., Hargett, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.
October 11, 2016 

The Honorable Mark R. Warner 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Warner: 

 On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your 

letter of September 14, 2016, requesting a copy of our updated implementation plan for the 

Digital Accountability and Transparency (DATA) Act of 2014. Our August 12, 2016, updated 

plan is enclosed. The most recent guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and 

Department of the Treasury does not present the NRC with any new resource-related or other 

challenges. 

 Thank you for your interest in our efforts to meet the DATA Act requirements. If you 

need anything additional, please contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of 

Congressional Affairs, at (301) 415-1776. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

 Stephen G. Burns 

Enclosure: 

DATA Act Implementation Plan
#### § 126.3 Exceptions.

In a case of exceptional or undue hardship, or when it is otherwise in the interest of the United States Government, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls may make an exception to the provisions of this subchapter.

[79 FR 8085, Feb. 11, 2014]
§ 1509.400 What are my responsibilities as a(n) ADF awarding official? As a(n) ADF awarding official, you must obtain each recipient's agreement, as a condition of the award, to comply with the requirements in— ( a ) Subpart B of this part, if the recipient is not an individual; or
( b ) Subpart C of this part, if the recipient is an individual.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Claes Glassell, the Chief Executive Officer of Cerus Corporation (the Company) and Kevin D. Green, the Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, and to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 6th day of May, 2011.



/s/ William M. GreenmanWilliam M. GreenmanChief Executive Officer/s/ Kevin D. GreenKevin D. GreenChief Accounting Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Frank M. Semple, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to thebest of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

                (1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

                (2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ FRANK M. SEMPLE     |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|                    |   |   |
| Frank M. Semple         |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
|                    |   |   |
| December 19, 2005       |   |   |

 

----
§ 1104.5 Application for permits and information collection. ( a ) Any person may apply to the Commissioner for a permit to excavate and/or remove archaeological resources from public lands and to carry out activities associated with such excavation and/or removal.
( b ) Each application for a permit shall include: ( 1 ) The nature and extent of the work proposed, including how and why it is proposed to be conducted, proposed time of performance, locational maps, and proposed outlet for public written dissemination of the results.
( 2 ) The name and address of the individual(s) proposed to be responsible for conducting the work, institutional affiliation, if any, and evidence of education, training, and experience in accord with the minimal qualifications listed in § 1104.7(a).
( 3 ) The name and address of the individual(s), if different from the individual(s) named in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, proposed to be responsible for carrying out the terms and conditions of the permit.
( 4 ) Evidence of the applicant's ability to initiate, conduct, and complete the proposed work, including evidence of logistical support and laboratory facilities.
( 5 ) Where the application is for the excavation and/or removal of archaeological resources on public lands, the names of the university, museum, or other scientific or educational institution in which the applicant proposes to store all collections, and copies of records, data, photographs, and other documents derived from the proposed work. Applicants shall submit written certification, signed by an authorized official of the institution, of willingness to assume curatorial responsibility for the collections, records, data, photographs and other documents and to safeguard and preserve these materials as property of the United States.
( c ) The Commissioner may require additional information, pertinent to land management responsibilities, to be included in the application for permit and shall so inform the applicant.
( d ) Paperwork Reduction Act. The information collection requirement contained in § 1104.5 of these regulations has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and assigned clearance number 1024-0037. The purpose of the information collection is to meet statutory and administrative requirements in the public interest. The information will be used to assist the Commissioner in determining that applicants for permits are qualified, that the work proposed would further archaeological knowledge, that archaeological resources and associated records and data will be properly preserved, and that the permitted activity would not conflict with the management of the public lands involved. Response to the information requirement is necessary in order for an applicant to obtain a benefit.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4157 

To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing a proposed rule under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 relating to child labor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2012 

Mr. LATHAM (for himself and Mr. BOREN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing a proposed 

rule under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 relating to child labor. 

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 AND FINDINGS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Preserving America’s Family Farms Act’’. 

6 (b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

7 (1) family farms often depend on the contribu8 tions of youth for their successful operation; 

9 (2) regulations proposed to be adopted by the 

10 Department of Labor will adversely impact the longVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:09 Mar 08, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4157.IH H4157

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4157 IH

1 standing tradition of youth working on farms to gain 

2 valuable skills and lessons on hard work, character, 

3 and leadership; 

4 (3) the proposed regulations would be detri5 mental to the opportunity for youth to gain experi6 ential learning and hands-on skills for enrollment in 

7 vocational agricultural training; 

8 (4) the proposed regulations would obstruct the 

9 opportunity for youth to find rewarding employment 

10 and earn money for a college education or other 

11 meaningful purposes; 

12 (5) the proposed regulations will limit opportu13 nities to recruit young farmers to agriculture at a 

14 time when the average age of farmers continues to 

15 rise; and 

16 (6) working on a farm has become a way of life 

17 for thousands of youth across the rural United 

18 States. 

19 SEC. 2. RULE RELATING TO CHILD LABOR. 

20 The Secretary of Labor shall not finalize or enforce 

21 the proposed rule entitled ‘‘Child Labor Regulations, Or22 ders and Statements of Interpretation; Child Labor Viola23 tions—Civil Money Penalties’’ (published at 76 Fed. Reg. 

24 54836 (September 2, 2011)). 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
GERALDC.MMIi Aunnnr as. TEXAIW Maroh 27, 1939 

Mr. E. R. I;lndlay 

qlief C+-k 

Rouse t$ Reprssentatiws 

Austin, Texas 

DearMr.Lindley: 

. . 

opinion No. o-547 

Rer QueI.iflo&lon'of voters for 

eleotion to amend Constitution. 

Reoeipt~lir aakimwledged of your letter of this $ats enolosing 

a 06~~oP-Roti.Simple Resolution lb 186, wh%oh resolution requests an 

Opinion of;this~Oepartmsnt upon the question whether only tax peysm who 

have riindijred propSty fbr taxation, and are otheimise qualified, CPII' 

vote in-the proposed sleotion on the Constitutional Pmendmnt provided~ 

for 3n-joikt %esoluk~o:on-‘ND.:~ 18 if it is sulmfttsd tothe'peopler ~: The 

resolution requesting the opinion atatesthat under krtiole 8,~Seotlon 

Sa of the &m?titutionthsla is a very serious quo&Ion as to whc~muld 

be entiUIed to vote, if said'Constitutlona1 amendment is suhnittedto 

the pooplo, Inview of the fast that the propped amendment provides for 

certain taxes. 

..~. .&Mole 17 of _ fhe Constitution provides that muendmnts to the 

Condtiitriti~nm~im pfopawd to be voted upon by the qualified eleotors 

for members of the bgislature. 

-...~ 

ArEioli 6, S?oSion 2 of the Constitution provides'who are 

q&fied eleotdrs tith~oertain requiranwntfr and~also osrtain mstrlotions set out in reation 1, none of nhioh requires the eleotor to own 

taxable prop*. . 

~I16iole 8; &otion 3i ofthe Constitution mentioned in the 

resolution plearly is not applioable to p &ate wide &s&ion, which 

his necessary to amend%he Constitution, but applies only to elections 

held by oouiitiea or mAdiv~sions named in said seotion. The only part 

of said'seotion which might be aonstrued ~a8 including an election by 

the state as a whole is that part of the seotion reading 'pny member 

of counties.*'. Ilb do not believe, however, that this provision of the 

Constitution.nas 'intended to inolude the state a8 a ahole. Inultfisrst 

plaoe, the Constitution reoo&zes that there are oertain provisions of 

the Constitution and laws Wioh authorize ssWral'coui&ias to issue 

'bonds, suoh as &%iole 3;'Beotion 52, whioh authorites 'a9g nwber of 

adjoining ca&ies" to -issue bonds for certain parposes. In the next 

plPoei~we 'believe fhat if it had bean the intention of this provision 
Hon. E. R. Idndley, Page 2 (O-547) 

of the Constitution to make the phrase 'any number of counties" mean 

the State as a whole, it would have been easier for the provision to 

have used the word "Staten. 

You am, therefore, advised that it is the opinion of this 

Department that all voters whD are qualified under tbs provisions of 

A~%iols 6, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution, are qualified to vote 

on the proposed amendment to the Constitution. 

Yours very truly 

k Grady .ChaSler 

.k3,ssistmt
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 1305 Directorate ID : 2010 - SW - 041 -AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (Eurocopter) Model BO - 105A, BO - 105C, BO - 105S, BO - 105L S A - 1, BO - 105L S A - 3, EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, E C135 T2+, MBB - BK 117 A - 1, MBB - BK 117 A- 3, MBB - BK 117 A - 4, MBB - BK 117 B - 1, MBB - BK 117 B - 2, MBB - BK 117 C - 1, and MBB - BK 117 C - 2 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 416 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : The actions of this AD are intende d to prevent a pilot taking off with the cyclic in the locked position, which could result in loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 0 Labor per Helicopter ( .5 work-hour x $ 8 5 /workhour for the modification) $ 43 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 43 Total US Fleet Cost $ 17,680 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Jim

Grigg
```

[115th Congress Public Law 375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 5112]]

Public Law 115-375
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  1110 West Market Street in Athens, Alabama, as the ``Judge James E. 
   Horton, Jr. Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 
                                6513]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JUDGE JAMES E. HORTON, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1110 West Market Street in Athens, Alabama, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Judge James E. Horton, Jr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Judge James 
E. Horton, Jr. Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6513:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Nov. 29, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 12, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
### §1974d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1974d was editorially reclassified as section 20705 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
#### Wilguerson Georges et al., Respondents, v Winston Rajnarine et al., Respondents, and New York City Transit *284Authority, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 81]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), entered July 27, 1999, as, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability finding it 60% at fault in the happening of the accident, the defendants Winston Rajnarine and Ravin Rajnarine 30% at fault, and the plaintiff Wilguerson Georges 10% at fault, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, the action against the remaining defendants is severed, and a new trial is ordered on the issue of liability.

After alighting from a bus operated by the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA), the plaintiff Wilguerson Georges (hereinafter the plaintiff) was struck by a car driven by the defendant Ravin Rajnarine. It is well settled that a common carrier owes a duty to an alighting passenger to stop at a place where the passenger may safely disembark and leave the area *(see, Miller v Fernan,*73 NY2d 844; *Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*124 AD2d 106, *affd*72 NY2d 888). A carrier’s duty to its passenger terminates when he or she alights safely onto the curb *(see, Kramer v Lagnese,*144 AD2d 648, 649).

In the case at bar, the bus allegedly stopped at an angle which caused its rear portion to be further away from the curb than usual. Nevertheless, the plaintiff was not in any direct danger when he exited the rear door of the bus and could have easily walked a few feet from the point of departure to the sidewalk. However, after alighting from the bus, the plaintiff instead chose to walk to the back of the bus, where he then turned right, began to cross the street, and was struck by the car. Under these circumstances, there was no causal connection between the plaintiff’s accident and the fact that the bus stopped at an angle several feet from the curb. Thus, as a matter of law, the NYCTA is not liable *(see, Falvey v United States Gypsum Co.,*21 NY2d 839; *Kramer v Lagnese,*supra;*Matter of Eisenberg v Village of Mamaroneck,*137 AD2d 817; *Brooks v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*94 AD2d 656). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 10.3
 $357,312 PROMISSORY NOTE
 $357,312.33
    
    July 1, 2006
Dayton, Ohio
    i.
    
    Failure of the Borrower to make any payment required hereunder within ten (10)
days after receipt of written notice of any failure to pay;ii.
    
    The filing of any Chapter proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code with respect to
any of the Borrower, which in the case of an Involuntary proceeding is not removed
within sixty (60) days; oriii.
    
    Appointment of a receiver, or any marshaling of any assets of the Borrower for
the benefit of creditors; oriv.
    
    Sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Borrower or cessation of
Borrowers business.




---



##### 



BORROWER:PERFORMANCE HOME BUYERS LLCan Ohio limited liability companyBy:
    
    /s/ Peter E. JulianPrint Name: Peter E. JulianTitle: Chief Executive Officer
 GUARANTORS:
 /s/ Peter E. Julian
    
    
    
    /s/ Wayne HawkinsPeter Julian
    
    
    
    Wayne Hawkins/s/ Randall Porter
    
    
    
    /s/ Mark FitzgeraldRandall Porter
    
    
    
    Mark Fitzgerald
#### Robert D. Robinson, Respondent, v Michael Klein, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered May 3, 1977 in Washington County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term in favor of plaintiff. This is an action by plaintiff landlord for unpaid rent. Following a jury trial, the court directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff. This appeal ensued. There is no substantial dispute as to the facts. Plaintiff landlord entered into a lease agreement with defendant, as tenant, for the period September 30, 1972 to October 1, 1973. While defendant signed the lease and concededly was responsible for the rent during the term of the lease, his corporation, Tapas, Inc., went into possession and actually paid the rent by corporate check. Plaintiff acquiesced in this arrangement. Tapas vacated the premises on April 1, 1975. The unpaid rent is for the period subsequent to October *1,*1973. The lease was never renewed. Defendant urges reversal contending he was not liable for rent after the lease expired since he neither occupied the premises nor tendered the rent. We disagree. Concededly, there was no change in the manner of occupancy or payment of rent during the period of time covered by the written lease as compared with the period of time subsequent thereto. Furthermore, the record reveals that both parties dealt with each other as individuals and plaintiff looked at all times to defendant for the rent. The cases relied upon by defendant are factually distinguishable. The judgment should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of HBP Associates, Respondent, v County of Orange, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 584]

—In an eminent domain proceeding, the County of Orange appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Palella, J.), dated February 2, 1999, which is in favor of the petitioner and against it in the principal sum of $1,351,010, plus an additional allowance of $111,537 pursuant to EDPL 701.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the highest and best use of a property must be based upon evidence of a use which reasonably could or would be made of it in the near future *(see, Matter of City of New York [Broadway Cary Corp.],*34 NY2d 535, 536; *Yaphank Dev. Co. v County of Suffolk,*203 AD2d 280; *Matter of City of New York v Estate of Levine,*196 AD2d 654; *Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Neptune Assocs.,*190 AD2d 669). A “use which is no more than a speculative or hypothetical arrangement in the mind of the claimant may not be accepted as the basis for an award” *(Matter of City of New York [Shorefront High School-Rudnick],*25 NY2d 146, 149; *Matter of City of New York [Broadway Cary Corp.], supra,*at 536). Applying these principles, the petitioner satisfied its burden of proving that the highest and best use of its property was for a shopping center with so-called “pad sites.”

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.