alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nicoletta Leo, Respondent, v. Laura Reile, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Issues of fact were presented as to defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence. These issues were for the jury and upon the record it cannot be found that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence. Errors were committed by the trial court but in our opinion they were not of sufficient substance to require a new trial. It obviously was erroneous to permit plaintiff to testify over objection as to conversations with her son in which the latter identified the vehicle in question as a 1946 Buiek. Plaintiff was unable to identify the automobile and this hearsay evidence supplied a link in the chain to connect the car with defendant. However, adequate proof of the ownership of the ear was subsequently supplied by evidence of the license number thereof and the testimony of one in charge of the records of the *1083Motor Vehicle Bureau. We again express our disapproval of the method here adopted of proving the details of an accident by drawing a sketch upon a blackboard and having witnesses mark thereon where and how the accident occurred. It is difficult for an appellate court to review such an ambiguous record (cf. *People*v. *Ward,*277 App. Div. 939). (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### § 1423.3 Who may file charges.

The Department or labor organization may be charged by any person with having engaged in or engaging in any unfair labor practice prohibited under 22 U.S.C. 4115.
Sky Guardian LLC Unmanned Aerial Solutions P.O. Box 1074 . Bisbee, AZ 85603 WWW.SKYGUARDIAN.ORG January 25, 2016 RE: Exemption No. 11604 Regulator Docket No. FAA - 2015 - 0514 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 800 Indep endence Ave. S.W. Washington D. C. 20591 Sir , Sky Guardian L.L.C would like to amend our Exemption to include two items. The first item we would like to amend is the addition of the Action Drone 2 (AD2) . The AD - 2 is a quadcopter with the same operating functions as the AD - 1 and AD -Talon . Attached is the Spec sheet for this aircraft. The second item we would like to add is the authorization to provide training to Government agencies and private organizations . Training would be conducted for 1 or more d ays with a Basic Operator course, Basic System course , Basic Operator course recurrent training, Advance course s , Exemption - 333 and Certificates of Authorization. Our training outline would meet or exceed current FAA requirements. Our curriculum will cov er Private Pilot Ground, Sport Pilot Ground, UAS/UAV Ground and UAS/UAV Systems. Clients will be trained in Airman’s Knowledge and receive flight time. Our training can be adapted to meet new FAA regulations and testing standards for Exemption 333 applic ants , flight and non -flight (Controllers, data link video equipment) as needed . CFI instructors and additional staff would provide instruction. Additionally we request that Mobile Training Teams (MTTs) be authorized to provide training at governmental or private industrial organizations sites which would be cost effective for our clients. MTT Training will cover the same materials as training received at our home location. Our courseware will consist of off the shelf training packages from CFI Toolbox.c om. Respectfully Submitted,
No: 15-029 April 29, 2015

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC, Tennessee Valley Authority Meeting May 5 in Rockville, MD

to Discuss Emergency Planning for Proposed Clinch River Site

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

representatives on Tuesday, May 5, in Rockville, Md., to discuss parts of TVA’s proposed application 

for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at TVA’s Clinch River, Tenn. site.

The meeting will be from 8:30 - 10:30 a.m. in room O4B6 of the NRC’s One White Flint 

building at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville. The meeting will cover TVA’s proposed approach to 

emergency planning for the permit application. The permit would cover environmental and some site 

safety aspects of the utility’s plans for small modular reactors at the site, approximately 15 miles west 

of Knoxville, Tenn.

TVA’s emergency planning approach for the ESP could involve requesting exemptions to the 

NRC’s emergency preparedness regulations. If approved, the exemptions would allow TVA to use a 

smaller planning zone than currently considered for nuclear power plants. If the NRC ultimately issues 

an Early Site Permit for the site, TVA would have to apply for a separate license to build and operate a 

reactor at the site.

The meeting will include a teleconference line for those unable to attend. Anyone needing 

call-in information should contact Joseph Williams at 301-415-1470 or joseph.williams@nrc.gov by 

May 4 to ensure adequate phone lines are available.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Morris Clayman, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 29, 1960, after a jury trial, convicting him on two counts of receiving stolen goods, as a felony (Penal Law, § 1308, subd. 1, par. a), and sentencing him to serve one and one-half to five years on the *962first count, and suspending sentence on the second count. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
1

M E M O RANDU M

To : S e w a g e S l udg e I n c i n e r a t o r D o c k e t

F r om : A m

y H a m b r i c k

, U S E P A

D a t e : J u l

y 2010

Sub j ec t: P o r t W a s h i n g t o n S e w a g e S l udg e I n c i n e r a t o r ( N e w Y o r k S t a t e )

I s p o k e t o S h a w n S n ee o f t h e N e w Y o r k D e p a r t m e n t o f E nv i r o n m e n t a l C o n s e r v a t i o n ( NY D E C )

t o c o n f i r m t h a t t h e P o r t W a s h i n g t o n S e w a g e S l udg e I n c i n e r a t o r ( SS I) u n it w a s c u rr e n t l y o ff li n e a s

o f D ece m b e r 2009

. A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f r o m t h e P o r t W a s h i n g t o n SS I f ac ilit y ca ll e d m

e s p r i n g 2010

t o i n qu i r e t o t h e up c o mi n g SS I r u l e m a k i n g p r o p o s a l . T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e h a d m e n t i o n e d t h a t t h e

P o r t W a s h i n g t o n u n i t w a s o ff li n e

. I v e r i f

i e d w it h M r

. S n ee

, o f NY D E C t h a t P o r t W a s h i n g t o n

SS I u n i t w a s c u rr e n t l

y s h u t d o w n d o t o a f

i r e i n l a t e 2009

. M r

. S n ee w a s u n a b l e t o c o n f i r m i f t h e

u n i t w ill c o m e b ac k o n li n e

. I i n f

o r m e d M r

. S n ee t h a t E P A w a s w o r k i n g o n a SS I r u l e m a k i n g t o

b e p r o p o s e d s oo n a n d t h a t E P A l oo k s f o r w a r d t o r ece i v i n g a n y c o mm e n t s du r i n g t h e p r o p o s a l ’ s

pu b li c c o mm

e n t p e r i o d

.
#### In the Matter of Carolyn Carter, Respondent, v Allen S. Carter, Appellant.

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County, entered March 19, 1976, which, *inter alia,*directed the appellant to permit petitioner-respondent to have increased visitation with their child, and directed the parties to attend "visitation counseling or therapy”. Order reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a new hearing in accordance herewith. The parties entered into a separation agreement, incorporated into the *891judgment of divorce, which provided for specified periods of visitation. The mother, who did not have custody of the child, petitioned the Family Court for modification of the agreement in order to provide increased visitation. That court, without taking any testimony from the petitioner, ordered the appellant father to prove that increased visitation was not in the best interests of the child. He was required to bear the burden of proof on this issue. The Family Court, on the basis of appellant’s testimony, and without hearing any testimony from the petitioner, then ordered increased visitation as well as "visitation counseling”. Absent a showing by the petitioner that it is in the best interests of the child to have increased visitation, or any proof warranting "visitation counseling”, the Family Court was not warranted in

disturbing the existing visitation provisions. Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DWAYNE ORLANDO MAYS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 231 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

CHRISTOPHER HOLCOMB, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

March 1, 2016 

v No. 325410 

Macomb Circuit Court 

GWT, INC. d/b/a MOOSE TRAXX GRILL & 

BAR, 

LC No. 2013-002409-NI 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

PATRICK FRANCIS O’DONNELL and JAMES 

PATRICK O’DONNELL, 

 Defendants/Cross-Defendants. 

Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and JANSEN and SHAPIRO, JJ. 

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring) 

 I concur in the result only. 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74503-74504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27308]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 
13, 2005.

[[Page 74504]]

    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Description of Vessel; Eng Form 3931; 
Description of Operation; Eng Form 3932; OMB Control Number 0710-0009.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Number of Respondents: 3,058.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 3,058.
    Average Burden per Response: 40 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 2,048.
    Needs and Uses: The Corps of Engineers used ENG Forms 3931 and 3932 
as the basic instruments to collect vessel and operating descriptions 
for use in waterborne commerce statistics. These data constitute the 
sole source for domestic vessel characteristics and operating 
descriptions for domestic vessels operating on U.S. navigable 
waterways. These data are collected from vessel operating companies. 
These data are essential to plans for maintaining U.S. navigable 
waterways. These data are also critical to the enforcement of the 
``Harbor Maintenance Tax'' authorized under section 1402 of Public Law 
99-662.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jacqueline Zeiher.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESCD/Information Management 
Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326.

    Dated: December 6, 2004.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-27308 Filed 12-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
1

Parsons, Nick

From: Gershman, Lorraine [Lorraine_Gershman@americanchemistry.com]

Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 3:42 PM

To: Parsons, Nick

Subject: PRD language

Attachments: ACC comments on PRD language in AMF rule 01.07.14 to EPA.docx

Nick, 

 

As promised, here are ACC’s thoughts on the proposed PRD language. As you can see, I just cut and pasted certain 

pieces from the proposal, so it’s possible some of these issues are addressed elsewhere. I believe I covered most of 

these during our phone conversation. 

 

Thanks, 

Lorraine 

 

Lorraine Krupa Gershman, P.E.

Director, Environment

American Chemistry Council

(202) 249-6411

Lorraine_gershman@americanchemistry.com

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This message may contain confidential information and is intended 

only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee do not disseminate, distribute or copy this 

email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this 

email from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 

could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender 

therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a 

result of email transmission. American Chemistry Council, 700 – 2nd Street NE, Washington, DC 20002, 

www.americanchemistry.com
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.30

                            Starburst Innovation, LLC
                              48 Par le Ville Road
                             Hamilton, Bermuda HM11

March 14, 2005

Mr. Ray Willenberg, Jr. New Visual Corporation 5920 Friars Road, Ste. 104 San
Diego, CA 92108

Dear Ray:

This letter is intended to confirm our recent verbal agreement to extend the
maturity date of the remaining balance of the Note Payable obligation of New
Visual Corporation to Starburst Innovation, LLC by one year. The note obligation
shall become due and payable in full within three days of Payee's written
request for payment, provided, however, that Payee shall not be entitled to make
a payment request prior to November 15, 2005.The note will continue to earn
interest at 5% per annum, payable at termination or at time of repayment which
can be earlier without penalty.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Jens Henriksen
------------------------------
Jens Henriksen
Starburst Innovation, LLC
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELI TORRES, a.k.a. Meli Monroy,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73098

Agency No. A095-291-069

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Meli Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motions to reopen

and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the

FILED

JUL 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-73098

denial of a motion for abuse of discretion. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993,

997 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres’s motion to

reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s

prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558

(9th Cir. 2004). 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres’s August 30, 2010,

motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than three years after the

final administrative order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C), and she did not establish

a basis for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.

2003) (equitable tolling is available when petitioner is prevented from filing

because of deception, fraud, or error).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing

Torres’s direct appeal from the immigration judge’s decision and its February 4,

2010, denial of her motion to reopen because petitioner failed to timely petition

this court for review of these decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS,

315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Torres’s contention that the attorney who

represented her before the immigration judge on December 12, 2005, provided
3 10-73098

ineffective assistance because she failed to raise the issue before the BIA and

thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628

F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not

presented before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### Marinella Cummings, Respondent, v Gerard Cummings, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 594]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated December 6, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages in the sum of $2,802,583 (including $157,583 for past lost earnings, $725,000 for past pain and suffering, $720,000 for future lost earnings, and $1,200,000 for future pain and suffering), and upon the plaintiffs stipulation to reduce the verdict as to past lost earnings to the sum of $118,309.71 and future lost earnings to the sum of $445,680, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him.

*342Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff damages for future pain and suffering and granting a new trial with respect thereto; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the defendant, unless, within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the damages as to future pain and suffering from the sum of $1,200,000 to the sum of $500,000, and to entry of an amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In the instant case, the testimony of the plaintiff’s son established that the defendant’s decedent had actual notice of the defect which caused the plaintiffs accident *(see, Napolitano v Dhingra,*249 AD2d 523). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the testimony of the plaintiff’s son was not incredible as a matter of law *(see, Prozeralik v Capital Cities Communications,*82 NY2d 466, 473; *Gray v McParland,*255 AD2d 359, 360).

In determining whether an assessment of damages is excessive, this Court must determine whether it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]; *Contorino v Florida Ob*/ *Gyn Assn.,*259 AD2d 460; *Chazon v Parkway Med. Group,*168 AD2d 660). The award of damages for future pain and suffering is excessive to the extent indicated. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.
§ 242.832 Application of the trade execution requirement to cross-border security-based swap transactions. ( a ) The trade execution requirement set forth in section 3C(h) of the Act shall not apply in connection with a security-based swap unless at least one counterparty to the security-based swap is a “covered person” as defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) A “covered person” means, with respect to a particular security-based swap, any person that is: ( 1 ) A U.S. person;
( 2 ) A non-U.S. person whose performance under a security-based swap is guaranteed by a U.S. person; or
( 3 ) A non-U.S. person who, in connection with its security-based swap dealing activity, uses U.S. personnel located in a U.S. branch or office, or personnel of an agent of such non-U.S. person located in a U.S. branch or office, to arrange, negotiate, or execute a transaction.
###### Editorial Note on Part 142

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear at 68 FR 51359, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 142.63 Drug and alcohol addicts.

A recipient to which this subpart applies that operates a general hospital or outpatient facility may not discriminate in admission or treatment against a drug or alcohol abuser or alcoholic who is suffering from a medical condition, because of the person's drug or alcohol abuse or alcoholism.
§ 1509.505 How are violations of this part determined for recipients who are individuals? An individual recipient is in violation of the requirements of this part if the ADF President determines, in writing, that— ( a ) The recipient has violated the requirements of subpart C of this part; or
( b ) The recipient is convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity.
EX-10.4



 







	10.4	 	Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement of Donald E. Vick, Jr.





Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement




          This AMENDMENT NO. 1 is entered into as of this 27 day of January, 2006 by and among LanVision
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”), LanVision, Inc., an Ohio corporation (“Company”)
and Donald E. Vick, Jr. (“Employee”).




          WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of December 3,
1996 (“Employment Agreement”), whereby Parent and the Company agreed to employ the Employee; and




          WHEREAS, Parent, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set
forth herein;




 









 








          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which the parties hereby
acknowledge, the parties agree as follows:



In consideration of the Employee’ responsibilities and roles, Parent and the Company agree to pay
Employee effective February 1, 2006, Employee’s salary for the period commencing on such date
through January 31, 2007 shall be One Hundred One Thousand Seven hundred ninety Dollars ($101,790).



Continuing Agreement. Except for the changes set forth in this Amendment No. 1 the Employment
Agreement remains in full force and effect without modification.



Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts by Parent, the Company and
Employee.”




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the date set forth
above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	LanVision Systems, Inc.  
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Paul W. Bridge, Jr.	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Paul W. Bridge, Jr.
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	LanVision, Inc.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Paul W. Bridge, Jr.	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Paul W. Bridge, Jr.
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Employee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Donald E. Vick, Jr.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Donald E. Vick, Jr.
#### § 1423.1 Applicability of this part.

This part is applicable to any charge of alleged unfair labor practices filed with the Board on or after February 15, 1981.