alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Annie Smith, Respondent, v. The Trustees of the Village of Clifton Springs, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and *945complaint dismissed, "with costs. Held, that no sufficient notice or statement was given of the plaintiff’s injury within the time required by the Village Law.* All concur.

*

 See Village Law, § 341.— [Rep.
H. R. 4367 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit the fee disclosure requirement 

for an automatic teller machine to the screen of that machine. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FEE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT. 

Section 904(d)(3)(B) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act 

(15 U.S.C. 1693b(d)(3)(B)) (commonly known as the ‘‘Electronic Fund 

Transfer Act’’) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘REQUIREMENTS.’’ and all that follows 

through ‘‘The notice required under clauses (i) and (ii)’’ and 

inserting ‘‘REQUIREMENT.—The notice required under clauses 

(i) and (ii)’’ after ‘‘NOTICE’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘, except that during the period beginning’’ 

and all that follows and inserting a period. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Gloria R. Respondent, v George P. L. , Appellant.

In a paternity proceeding, the appeal is from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered February 4, 1976, after a nonjury trial. Permission for the taking of this appeal is hereby granted. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In the light of the conflicting testimony of the two parties and of their witnesses, it is clear that this proceeding turned on a close question of credibility. As this court has previously noted in connection with records similar to the one-which is presently before us, "we would not be *893justified in substituting our judgment for that of the Trial Judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” *(Matter of Linda S. v James G.,*52 AD2d 607; *People v Kelly,*20 AD2d 740). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES F. LUDDON,

Petitioner,

 v.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. CV-08-0275 MMC (PR)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED The respondent’s motion to dismiss the

petition as untimely is hereby GRANTED and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

hereby DISMISSED.

Dated: June 22, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-00275-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3983 

To permit aliens who lawfully enter the United States on valid visas as 

nonimmigrant elementary and secondary school students to attend public 

schools in the United States for longer than 1 year if such aliens 

reimburse the local educational agency that administers the school for 

the full, unsubsidized per capita cost of providing education at such 

school for the period of the alien’s attendance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2012 

Mr. OWENS (for himself, Mr. WELCH, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. 

TONKO, and Mr. HINCHEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit aliens who lawfully enter the United States on 

valid visas as nonimmigrant elementary and secondary 

school students to attend public schools in the United 

States for longer than 1 year if such aliens reimburse 

the local educational agency that administers the school 

for the full, unsubsidized per capita cost of providing 

education at such school for the period of the alien’s 

attendance. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3983 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Amer3 ica’s Public Schools Through Promoting Foreign Invest4 ment Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. NONIMMIGRANT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 

6 SCHOOL STUDENTS. 

7 Section 214(m)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Na8 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(m)(1)(B)) is amended by 

9 striking ‘‘unless—’’ and all that follows through ‘‘(ii)’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘unless’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
132 STAT. 5066 PUBLIC LAW 115–351—DEC. 21, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4326: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Nov. 29, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 12, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–351 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 West 

North Street in Normal, Illinois, as the ‘‘Sgt. Josh Rodgers Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SGT. JOSH RODGERS POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 200 West North Street in Normal, Illinois, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Sgt. Josh Rodgers Post Office’’. 

(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 ‘‘Sgt. Josh Rodgers Post Office’’. 

Approved December 21, 2018. 

Dec. 21, 2018 

[H.R. 4326]
### §14161. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1154(b)(4), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3113

Section, Pub. L. 103–322, title XXI, §210602, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2073, related to federal assistance to ease increased burdens on State court systems and authorized appropriations.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Duffy, Appellant.

Motion for reargument denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                             Financial Data Schedule

         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB as of and for the fiscal quarter ended
January 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001020448
<NAME>                        Imperial Petroleum Recovery Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         58,298
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               58,298
<PP&E>                                         138,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          419,333
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15,092
<OTHER-SE>                                     (440,423)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   215,502
<SALES>                                        22,512
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,512
<CGS>                                          66,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  230,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (216,795)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (216,795)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (216,795)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 206.4 Procedure where a decision concerning a demand is not made prior to the time a response to the demand is required.

If the response to the demand is required before the instructions from the General Counsel, or his designee, are received, an attorney designated by the Department of Justice for the purpose shall appear with the employee or former employee upon whom the demand has been made, and shall furnish the court or other authority with a copy of the regulations contained in this part and inform the court or other authority that the demand has been, or is being, as the case may be, referred for the prompt consideration of the General Counsel and shall respectfully request the court or other authority to stay the demand pending receipt of the requested instructions.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

J uly 1 4 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk Ju ly 1 4 , 2017

154851 (39)

ALICE M. BROWN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 154851

v COA: 330508

Chippewa CC: 14

- 013459

- NO

CITY OF SAULT STE MARIE, ERIC

FOUNTAIN, GREG SCHMITIGAL, MIKE

BREAKIE, JEFF KILLIPS, and BRUCE

LIPPONEN,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant s

- appellant s to extend the

time for filing th eir supplemental brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as

timely filed if submitted on or before August 16 , 2017. The same extension is given to

plaintiff

- appellee to file her supplemental brief.
#### William Kline, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Anna S. Kline, et al., Respondents, v. James White, Sr., et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 16, 1960, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment striking out the answer and directing an assessment of damages. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the record presents issues of fact which should be resolved after trial. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §15244. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15244 was editorially reclassified as section 50314 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear at 68 FR 51359, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 142.12 Reasonable accommodation. ( a ) A recipient shall make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant or employee unless the recipient can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the program or activity.
( b ) Reasonable accommodation may include: ( 1 ) Making facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons, and
( 2 ) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, the provision of readers or interpreters, and other similar actions.
( c ) In determining pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of a recipient's program or activity, factors to be considered include: ( 1 ) The overall size of the recipient's program with respect to number and type of facilities, and size of budget;
( 2 ) Job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition and or modification of equipment of devices such as telecommunication devices for the deaf, the provision of readers or interpreters and other similar actions including the use of braille, enlarged type, and sign language, when appropriate.
( 3 ) The nature and cost of the accommodation needed.
( d ) A recipient may not deny any employment opportunity to a qualified handicapped employee or applicant if the basis for the denial is the need to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental limitations of the employee or applicant.
#### Maria A. Vigorito, Respondent, v. New York Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment modified as stated in order and as modified affirmed, with costs to respondent. Present — Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Davis, JJ.; McLaughlin, J., dissented and voted for reversal and new trial.
§ 22.3 Remittances in the United States. ( a ) *Type of remittance.* Remittances shall be in the form of: ( 1 ) Check or bank draft drawn on a bank in the United States;
( 2 ) money order—postal, international or bank; or
( 3 ) U.S. currency. Remittances shall be made payable to the order of the Department of State. The Department will assume no responsibility for cash which is lost in the mail.
( b ) *Exact payment of fees.* Fees must be paid in full prior to issuance of requested documents. If uncertainty as to the existence of a record or as to the number of sheets to be copied precludes remitting the exact fee chargeable with the request, the Department of State will inform the interested party of the exact amount required.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER RE THE TRIAL DATE

With respect to the trial date, it will be left at May 10, 2010, but it may have to trail

another large earlier trial that will likely still be underway when May 10 arrives. The actual start

date for the Schwab trial may (or may not) slip to the week of May 17. Not having the luxury to

move the start date to the following week, the Court must ask counsel and witnesses to be flexible

and adjust, being ready to go as scheduled, as well as trailing as necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 520 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 21, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), The Information Technology Industry Council, Inc./The InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (“ITI/INCITS”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: The Information Technology Industry Council, Inc./The InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards, Washington, DC. The nature and scope of ITI/INCITS' standards development activities are: development of standards in the field of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT), encompassing storage, processing, transfer, display, management, organization, and retrieval of information.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-27545  Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Elliott L. Sackler, Appellant, v Americana Hotels, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 30, 1977, and the judgment entered thereon on October 18, 1977, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Stecher, J., at Special Term. The respondents shall recover of the appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEPSI AMERICAS,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-02742 SI

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: n/a at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is June 26, 2015.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS/REPORTS: 

pltf: 7/17/15, deft: 8/28/15, pltf responsive: 9/25/15. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is .

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by October 23, 2015 ; 

Opp. Due Novmeber 20, 2015; Reply Due December 11, 2015;

 and set for hearing no later than January 15, 2016 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: April 19,2 016 at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: May 2, 2015 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

Plaintiff shall produce it’s response to the questionnaires previously used in this action by April 24,

2015.

The case caption shall be Danielle Smith vs. Pepsiamericas.

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

3/24/15

Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 274 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harry Kipnis, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Smith, Page and Merrell, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The Hawaiian monk seal in thenorthwestern Hawaiian Islands.**
 
1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.13/2:H 31/
Item Number:0208-C-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000999318
 
August 21, 2019
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Sixteenth census of the UnitedStates: 1940: population: state of birth of the native population**
 
Interactive Table of Contents
 
Title Page, Table of Report, Letter of Transmittal, Map,Table of Contents, Charts and Graphs
 
Chapter 01
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.940-2:P 81/26
Item Number:0213 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104768
 
August 22, 2019