alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### November Realty Corp., Appellant, *v.*Florence McComb, Tenant, and Rosemary Bull, Respondent.

Per *Curiam.*

The landlord appeals from a determination of the Appellate Term vacating a final order in summary proceedings and allowing intervention on application of an undertenant, who had not been made a party.

*736The landlord sought to recover possession of a fourteen-room apartment occupied under a statutory tenancy and used exclusively by the undertenant as her residence.. The furniture, without which the apartment would be uninhabitable, was rented from the prime tenant under the terms of the sublease. The landlord had obtained a certificate of eviction and instituted the dispossess proceedings against the prime tenant alone. The final order was granted on consent of the latter and a warrant issued, pursuant to which a city marshal proceeded to remove the furniture from the apartment over the protest of the undertenant.

The sublease governing the occupancy of the undertenant provided for a fixed rental of the apartment as furnished accommodations. The arrangement had been for the landlord to collect the monthly rent from the undertenant and remit the balance to the main tenant after deducting the rent due from the latter. It is clear, therefore, that the landlord had full knowledge of the situation. This awareness is also evidenced by the further fact that it commenced other proceedings before the rent administrator to obtain a certificate-of eviction against the undertenant for the purpose of altering and subdividing: the apartment.

In the light of all the circumstances, we think that it was improper for the-landlord to bring the summary proceedings against the prime tenant alone and; to execute the warrant by removing all the furniture used by the undertenant: so as to render the apartment unsuitable for her use and occupancy.

It should be remembered that the impact of the emergency rent legislation: has been felt not only in the substantive law of landlord and tenant, but also in: matters of procedure involving the termination of that relationship. While a-, landlord need not ordinarily join an undertenant as a party to a summary-proceeding against the main tenant, we think that the circumstances of the: present case were such as to make the undertenant a necessary party to the: proceedings. Otherwise, the landlord and the tenant would be in a position between them to affect materially the statutory rights of the undertenant without her knowledge. In fact, this very thing seems to have happened in the case before us.

We do not concur in the suggestion of the Appellate Term that Rosemary Bull held the status of tenant, or that subdivision 2 of section 56 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations had any application to these proceedings.

For the reasons aforesaid, the determination of the Appellate Term should be affirmed in all respects, with costs to the respondent.

Grlennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Determination unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. [200 Misc. 433.] [See *post,*p. 790.]
#### In the Matter of Trans British Textiles, Inc., Assignor, to New York Credit Men’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Assignee. Lanificio F. Cerruti, Respondent; New York Credit Men’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc., as Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors of Trans British Textiles, Inc., Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 2, 1976, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Fraiman, J., and the Special Referee. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Evans and Markewich, JJ.
### §300z–2. Demonstration projects; grant authorization, etc.

(a) The Secretary may make grants to further the purposes of this subchapter to eligible grant recipients which have submitted an application which the Secretary finds meets the requirements of section 300z–5 of this title for demonstration projects which the Secretary determines will help communities provide appropriate care and prevention services in easily accessible locations. Demonstration projects shall, as appropriate, provide, supplement, or improve the quality of such services. Demonstration projects shall use such methods as will strengthen the capacity of families to deal with the sexual behavior, pregnancy, or parenthood of adolescents and to make use of support systems such as other family members, friends, religious and charitable organizations, and voluntary associations.

(b) Grants under this subchapter for demonstration projects may be for the provision of—

(1) care services;

(2) prevention services; or

(3) a combination of care services and prevention services.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XX, §2003, as added Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §955(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 582.)
§ 204.1 Definitions. Wherever used in these standard terms and conditions: ( a ) *A.I.D.* means the United States Agency for International Development or its successor with respect to the housing guaranty authorities contained in title III, chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the “Act”).
( b ) *Eligible Note(s)* means (a) Note(s) meeting the eligiblity criteria set out in § 204.12 hereof.
( c ) *Eligible Investor* means an “eligible investor” as defined in section 238(c) of the Act.
( d ) *Lender* means an Eligible Investor who initially provides loan funds to the Borrower in exchange for Eligible Note(s).
( e ) *Investment* respecting any Eligible Note means the principal amount of such Eligible Note.
( f ) *Assignee* means the owner of an Eligible Note who is registered as an Assignee on the Note Register of Eligible Notes required to be maintained by the Paying Agent and who is an “Eligible Investor.”
( g ) *Outstanding Investment* respecting any Eligible Note means the Investment less the net amount of any repayments of principal of the Investment made by or on behalf of the Borrower or A.I.D.
( h ) *Further Guaranteed Payments* means the amount of any loss suffered by the Lender or by any Assignee by reason of the Borrower's failure to comply on a timely basis with any obligation it may have under an Eligible Note to indemnify and hold harmless the Lender and Assignee from taxes or governmental charges or any expense arising out of taxes or any other governmental charges relating to the Note in the country of the Borrower.
( i ) *Loss of Investment* respecting any Eligible Note means an amount in Dollars equal to the total of the ( 1 ) Outstanding Investment determined as of the Date of Application,
( 2 ) Further Guaranteed Payments unpaid as of the Date of Application, and
( 3 ) interest accrued at the rate(s) specified in the Note(s) and unpaid on the Outstanding Investment and Further Guaranteed Payments to and including the date on which full payment thereof is made to the Lender or any Assignee.
( j ) *Application for Compensation* means an executed application in the form of Exhibit A hereto which the Lender or any Assignee files with A.I.D. pursuant to § 204.21 of this part.
( k ) *Applicant* means a Lender or Assignee who files an Application for Compensation with A.I.D.
( l ) *Date of Application* means the effective date of an Application for Compensation filed with A.I.D. pursuant to § 204.21 of this part.
( m ) *Business Day* means a date on which banks of the District of Columbia of the United States of America are open for business.
( n ) *Guaranty Payment Date* means a Business Day not more than sixty (60) calendar days after the related Date of Application; provided that ( 1 ) compensation to the party filing the related Application for Compensation is due and payable on such date, in accordance with the terms of this Guaranty and
( 2 ) tender of assignment referred to in subsection 204.21(f) is made as therein provided.
[53 FR 33805, Sept. 1, 1988; 53 FR 39015, Oct. 4, 1988]
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 9:52 AM

To: 'gnorth@just1uav.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Just 1 UAV LLC (FAA-2015-0120)

October 2, 2015 

Dear Mr. North: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0120). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by October 16, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
### §19066. Technology and behavioral science research

#### (a) In general

The Director shall make awards on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis for research and development to—

(1) increase understanding of social media and consumer technology access and use patterns and related mental health, behavioral, and substance use disorder issues, particularly for children and adolescents; and

(2) explore the role of social media and consumer technology in rising rates of mental health and substance use disorder issues, including within communities experiencing long-term economic distress.

#### (b) Coordination to avoid duplication

In making awards under this subsection, the Director shall, for purposes of avoiding duplication of activities and research, consult, collaborate, and coordinate with the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10357, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1563.)
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-0758 Directorate ID: 2013-SW-062-AD

Helicopter Model: Kaman Aerospace Corporation Model K-1200 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 11 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in the main rotor blades (MRBs), 

which could lead to failure of the MRB and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $2,000 per pair per inspection cycle

$15,000 to repair a cracked MRB

$495,000 to replace the MRB set

Labor per Helicopter

(160 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour for the 

MRB inspection)

(335 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour for the 

MRB repair)

(4 work-hour x $85/workhour for the MRB set 

replacement)

$13,600 per pair per inspection cycle

$28,475

$340

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $31,200 per set per inspection cycle

$43,470 to repair a cracked MRB

$495,340 to replace the MRB set

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: Nicholas Faust
###### Editorial Note on Part 133

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 133 appear at 68 FR 66582, Nov. 26, 2003.

#### § 133.625 Criminal drug statute.

*Criminal drug statute* means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Bernard Graves v. Henry J. Noble, as Warden.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### § 230.13 Change in agreements.

No Noteholder will consent to any change or waiver of any provision of any document contemplated by this Guarantee without the prior written consent of USAID.
Medicine Bow

17 Saratoga

16

15

Encampment
14

62 _R6IW 6

sseeeeee Continental Divide National Scenic Trail a a — $e
(9) North Platte Kilometers
. . 0 5 10 20 30 40 50
HB Shirley Mountain a
Miles

Map 2-14
Special Recreation Management Areas

Alternative 1
NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
#### § 309.20 Compromise.

Peace Corps may attempt to effect compromise in accordance with the standards set forth in the FCCS (31 CFR part 902).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Russo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered September 29, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed. The motion to withdraw the plea was made on the grounds of (1) defendant’s intoxication at the time he entered the plea and (2) misinformation by counsel as to the minimum period of incarceration should defendant be found guilty as charged. At the hearing defendant did not dispute his admission at the plea that he received $50 from the proceeds of a $1,300 sale of cocaine. Nowhere in the record does the defendant protest his innocence. We cannot hold, on this record, that the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea was an improvident exercise of discretion. We have examined defendant’s constitutional claim relating to the severity of his sentence and find it to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.
### §300ff–37. State HIV testing programs established prior to or after May 20, 1996

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to disqualify a State from receiving grants under this subchapter if such State has established at any time prior to or after May 20, 1996, a program of mandatory HIV testing.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, §2627, formerly §2629, as added Pub. L. 104–146, §7(b)(3), May 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1372; renumbered §2627, Pub. L. 106–345, title II, §211(3), Oct. 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 1339; amended Pub. L. 109–415, title VII, §703, Dec. 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 2820; Pub. L. 111–87, §2(a)(1), (3)(A), Oct. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 2885.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2627 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 300ff–35 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 106–345.

#### Amendments

2009—Pub. L. 111–87 repealed Pub. L. 109–415, §703, and revived the provisions of this section as in effect on Sept. 30, 2009. See 2006 Amendment note and Effective Date of 2009 Amendment; Revival of Section note below.

2006—Pub. L. 109–415, §703, which directed repeal of this section effective Oct. 1, 2009, was itself repealed by Pub. L. 111–87, §2(a)(1), effective Sept. 30, 2009.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2009 Amendment; Revival of Section

For provisions that repeal by section 2(a)(1) of Pub. L. 111–87 of section 703 of Pub. L. 109–415 be effective Sept. 30, 2009, and that the provisions of this section as in effect on Sept. 30, 2009, be revived, see section 2(a)(2), (3)(A) of Pub. L. 111–87, set out as a note under section 300ff–11 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 13 of Pub. L. 104–146, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 300ff–11 of this title.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                    AMENDED AND RESTATED MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

         This Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Management Agreement
(the "AMENDMENT") is entered into by and among Saigene Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("MANAGER"), Pacific Biometrics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"CORPORATION"), and Pacific Biometrics, Inc., a Washington corporation (the
"SUBSIDIARY"), and amends that certain Amended and Restated Management
Agreement, dated as of August 28, 2002 and amended June 18, 2003 (the
"MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT"), among the Manager, the Corporation and the Subsidiary.

                                    RECITALS

         A.       Pursuant to the Management Agreement, the Corporation is
currently paying the Manager a management fee equal to $70,000 per month in
consideration for managing the Subsidiary's clinical laboratory.

         B.       The Corporation and the Manager desire to enter into this
Amendment in order to amend the Management Agreement to reduce the management
fee from $70,000 per month to $40,000 per month.

                                    AGREEMENT

         The parties hereby agree as follows:

         1.       Section 3 of the Management Agreement is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following text:

                  "3.      Compensation of Manager. Effective February 1, 2004,
         as compensation for Manager's services hereunder, the Corporation and
         Subsidiary will pay the Manager the aggregate sum of $40,000.00 per
         month."

         2.       Except as expressly amended hereby, all of the terms,
conditions and provisions of the Management Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect and shall govern this Amendment, and the parties shall retain all of
their rights arising under the Management Agreement existing on the date hereof,
none of which are being waived hereby.

         The parties have entered into this Amendment as of February 1, 2004.

MANAGER:                            SAIGENE CORPORATION

                                    By: /s/ Allan G. Cochrane
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Allan G. Cochrane, President

CORPORATION:                        PACIFIC BIOMETRICS, INC.,
                                    A DELAWARE CORPORATION

                                    By: Ronald R. Helm
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Ronald R. Helm, Chief Executive Officer

SUBSIDIARY:                         PACIFIC BIOMETRICS, INC.,
                                    A WASHINGTON CORPORATION

                                    By: Ronald R. Helm
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Ronald R. Helm, President
### §§2795 to 2797. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519

Section 2795, Pub. L. 88–452, title II, §212, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §104, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 694, related to specific powers and functions of community action agencies.

A prior section 212 of Pub. L. 88–452 was classified to section 2801 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 89–750, title III, §315, Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1222.

Section 2796, Pub. L. 88–452, title II, §213, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §104, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 695; amended Pub. L. 95–568, §§4(d), 17(a)(5), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2426, 2439, related to administrative standards, rules and regulations, and review and consultative requirements.

A prior section 213 of Pub. L. 88–452 was classified to section 2802 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 89–750, title III, §315, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1222.

Section 2797, Pub. L. 88–452, title II, §214, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §104, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 696, related to housing development and service organizations.

A prior section 214 of Pub. L. 88–452 was classified to section 2803 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 89–750, title III, §315, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1222.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 9912(a) of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title by Pub. L. 105–285.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4426 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4426

   To suspend temporarily the duty on black 820 inkjet printing ink.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

  Mr. Carney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on black 820 inkjet printing ink.

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

SECTION 1. BLACK 820 INKJET PRINTING INK.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.40.40 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Black 820 inkjet printing 
ink) is amended by--
            (1) striking ``0.3%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
            (2) striking ``12/31/2012'' and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Joseph Berry, Appellant.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the November 1960 Term; appeal ordered to be placed on the calendar for November 7, 1960. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Anthony *810F. Marra, Esq., 100 Centre Street, New York, 13, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.