alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Leslie Ahart, Respondent, v Preload Co. et al., Appellants, Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed June 5, 1975, which, in pertinent respects, affirmed an award of death benefits to the widow of the deceased employee. The issue in this proceeding is whether *977decedent met his death in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The pertinent facts as found by the board in its decision, and as supported by substantial evidence in the record, establish that decedent, whose home was in Illinois, had worked for the employer herein at a number of job sites around the country. In March of 1973, he was • employed as an assistant superintendent at a job site in Staten Island. For the duration of the job decedent stayed at a motel nearby in New Jersey, and frequently did bookkeeping, payroll and other paper work incidental to the job during the evenings, thus making the motel an extension of the employment premises. On the day of his demise decedent and the job superintendent drove in a company truck to a nearby tavern where they had something to eat and drink. Later that evening, while the two were proceeding in the direction of the motel, the truck struck a concrete bridge abutment, causing decedent’s death. There is no contention that the death was caused solely by intoxication, nor is there any evidence to indicate that decedent was at the time engaged in a deviation from his employment. It is well settled that an employee who is required to work far from home and who must remain in a particular locality for a period of time, may indulge in any reasonable activity and if he does so, the risks inherent in such activity are an incident of the employment *(Matter of Robarás v New York Div. Elec. Proás.*and *Matter of Lyons v Stoll,*33 AD2d 1067). The facts as found by the board supported, as previously noted by substantial evidence, clearly bring this case within the rule of *Robarás*and *Lyons.*Moreover, since work was frequently performed at the motel room, as previously indicated, plaintiffs journey thereto could be found to have been in the course of employment. Thus, the decision of the board must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Mahoney and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook                   
|                        |  |     |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



|                        |  |     |  |                           
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton   
|                        |  |     |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton       
|                        |  |     |  | Vice President and Cashier
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\5634\Order re March 12 hearing.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIRTRANSPORTATION ANTITRUSTLITIGATION                                                                      /

This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS                                                                      /

No. C 07-05634 CRB

MDL 1913

ORDER

The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a

determination of the applicability of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction to these proceedings. 

The merits of those motions will therefore not be the subject of the hearing scheduled for

March 12, 2010.  Instead, the parties should be prepared to discuss the merits of Defendants’

Motion To Stay Proceedings Upon Notice of Injunction in In Re: Japan Airlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00909-CRB   Document 11   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T00:46:52-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
###### Editorial Note on Part 133

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 133.670 Suspension.

*Suspension* means an action taken by a Federal agency that immediately prohibits a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions for a temporary period, pending completion of an investigation and any judicial or administrative proceedings that may ensue. A recipient so prohibited is suspended, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and the common rule, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), that implements Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689. Suspension of a recipient is a distinct and separate action from suspension of an award or suspension of payments under an award.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 5105]]

Public Law 115-370
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To adjust the real estate appraisal thresholds under the 7(a) program to 
  bring them into line with the thresholds used by the Federal banking 
   regulators, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 
                                6347]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: 7(a) Real Estate 
Appraisal Harmonization Act. 15 USC 631 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``7(a) Real Estate Appraisal 
Harmonization Act''.
SEC. 2. APPRAISAL THRESHOLDS.

    Section 7(a)(29) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(29)) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
        (i) and (ii), respectively, and adjusting the margins of such 
        clauses accordingly;
            (2) by striking ``With respect to'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(A) In general.--With respect to'';
            (3) in clause (i), as so redesignated, by striking ``for 
        more than $250,000'' and inserting ``, if such loan is in an 
        amount greater than the Federal banking regulator appraisal 
        threshold'';
            (4) in clause (ii), as so redesignated, by striking ``for 
        $250,000 or less'' and inserting ``, if such loan is in an 
        amount equal to or less than the Federal banking regulator 
        appraisal threshold''; and
            (5) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Federal banking regulator appraisal threshold 
                defined.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
                `Federal banking regulator appraisal threshold' means 
                the lesser of the threshold amounts set by the Board of 
                Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller 
                of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance 
                Corporation for when a federally related transaction 
                that is a commercial real estate transaction requires an 
                appraisal prepared by a State licensed or certified 
                appraiser.''.

    Approved December 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6347 (S. 3552):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115-940 (Comm. on Small Business).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 115-437 (Comm. on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship) accompanying S. 3552.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Sept. 25, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Michael J. M., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Lynn N, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, St. Lawrence County, entered January 13, 1977, which adjudged appellant’s child to be neglected and removed him from the care of the appellant and placed him with the Commissioner of Social Services of St. Lawrence County for an initial period of one year. On this appeal, the appellant urges that the evidence was not sufficient as a matter of law to support the findings that she was incapable of proper supervision and guardianship of the child in question or that the child was neglected. Upon the neglect proceeding, at which both the appellant and the father were represented by counsel and the infant by a Law Guardian, the court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant had exhibited antisocial behavior. The court found that this behavior, including the offenses of harassment, criminal solicitation and public intoxication, as well as such physical abuse of the child as putting beer in his baby bottle, constituted improper supervision and guardianship within the meaning of those terms as defined by section 1012 of the Family Court Act. We find that this record provides not only support for the Family Court’s decision by a preponderance of the evidence, but also supplies "strong and convincing proof of unfitness” on the part of the mother *(Matter of Gonzalez,*51 AD2d 527). As a result of the finding of neglect and a subsequent dispositional hearing, the court ordered the infant removed from the care of the appellant and placed with the Commissioner of Social Services for the County of St. Lawrence for an additional period of one year, with rights of visitation to both parents and grandfather. The order further provided that each parent and the grandfather were under an order of protection not to consume intoxicating beverages for at least eight hours before the child was visited. The appellant was placed under an order of protection not to harass or assault the foster parents or to in any way interfere with the custody of the child. We find such order to be rational and in accordance with our findings in this case. Appellant further urges that she had inadequate counsel. Her appointed counsel, she claims, failed to claim surprise at the introduction of "new evidence” and failed to secure witnesses to substantiate her denials. On this record, we find such argument to be without merit. Order affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
§ 37.1302 Types of financial resources. Financial resources available to satisfy the requirements of § 37.1301 may include: ( a ) The swap execution facility's own capital, meaning its assets minus its liabilities calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States; and
( b ) Any other financial resource deemed acceptable by the Commission.
#### Goldner Trucking Corp., Respondent, v. Stoll Packing Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for conversion, defendant Stoll Packing Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 3, 1959, denying its motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff’s cross motion to amend its previously amended *640complaint. Order modified by striking out its second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs relating to the cross motion, and by substituting therefor a paragraph denying plaintiff’s cross motion to amend its complaint, without prejudice to the renewal of such motion upon proper papers. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The papers in support of the motion to amend the complaint are insufficient, in that they do not contain a copy of the proposed amended complaint in full *(Hoisting Mach. Co.*v. *Elderfields Reservation,*195 App. Div. 893; *Plitt*v. *Illinois Sur. Co.,*165 App. Div. 973). Furthermore, the order in effect directs that the proposed amendment be deemed effectuated, without provision for service of a copy of the complaint as thus amended. Such procedure is not permissible. It engenders a question of whether it was intended that an answer to the new pleading was to be served or not, and a defendant should not be deprived of a right to answer a new pleading *(Kelly*v. *Hilbert,*200 App. Div. 489). As to the motion for summary judgment, the record presents triable issues of fact. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., not voting.
§ 1006.50 How is this part written? ( a ) This part uses a “plain language” format to make it easier for the general public and business community to use. The section headings and text, often in the form of questions and answers, must be read together.
( b ) Pronouns used within this part, such as “I” and “you,” change from subpart to subpart depending on the audience being addressed. The pronoun “we” always is the Inter-American Foundation.
( c ) The “Covered Transactions” diagram in the appendix to this part shows the levels or “tiers” at which the Inter-American Foundation enforces an exclusion under this part.
### §2465b. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–303, title II, §203(1), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2855

Section, Pub. L. 101–611, title II, §202, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3205, related to congressional findings in support of the commercial launch industry.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4327 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4327

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2012

  Mr. Michaud (for himself, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. 
     Jones, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and Mr. McGovern) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

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

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tinnitus Research and Treatment Act 
of 2012''.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION AND TREATMENT OF TINNITUS AT DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS AUDITORY CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall recognize tinnitus as a 
mandatory condition for research and treatment by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Auditory Centers of Excellence.

SEC. 3. RESEARCH ON PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF TINNITUS.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure that research is 
conducted at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities on the 
prevention and treatment of tinnitus. Such research shall include--
            (1) an assessment of the efficacy of different tinnitus 
        treatment modalities on different subsets of patients;
            (2) studies on the underlying etiology of tinnitus in 
        veteran populations that occur as a result of different causal 
        factors, including blast-related tinnitus versus other forms of 
        noise-induced tinnitus; and
            (3) a study of the causal effects between hearing loss and 
        tinnitus, including cases in which one or the other condition 
        is present, but not both.

SEC. 4. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COOPERATION.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure the cooperation of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs with the Hearing Center of 
Excellence established by the Department of Defense to further research 
on tinnitus.
                                 <all>
```
3424.704 Contract clause.       The contracting officer must insert the clause at 3452.224–73 in all solicitations and contracts, including those for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services, when a requiring activity has provided notification that a contractor will collect or receive access to PII from student education records in connection with carrying out an audit, evaluation, study, compliance review, or other Federal law enforcement activity on behalf of the Department. The contracting officer must fill out paragraph (b) of the clause at 3452.224–73 with the type(s) of PII to be collected or accessed by contractor.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3424.7—The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 04a0108n.06

Filed: November 18, 2004

No. 03-6338

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROBERTSON CHEATHAM FARMER’S

COOPERATIVE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE MIDDLE

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: NORRIS, BATCHELDER and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Defendant, Robertson Cheatham Farmer’s Cooperative, appeals from a

jury verdict awarding back pay in an action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission on behalf of a former employee of defendant, based on the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Defendant contends that the district court erred

when it denied its motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, or remittitur.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on

appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court

erred in denying defendant the relief it sought.

Because the reasoning which supports the district court’s rulings has been articulated by the

district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve
No. 03-6338

EEOC v. Robertson Cheatham

- 2 -

no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning

employed by that court in its Memorandum Opinion dated September 5, 2003.
#### H. H. Culmer, appellee, v. United States Electro Chemical Company et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 27,178.

Action to recover for wages due. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Newcomer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court- at the October term, 1921.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed November 29, 1922.

G. A. Buresh, for appellants. No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,230,394
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  177,030
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,407,424
<PP&E>                                      17,846,259
<DEPRECIATION>                                (72,516)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,181,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          196,601
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,982,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,181,167
<SALES>                                        593,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               774,138
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                688,748
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            688,748
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   688,748
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1104.10 Appeals relating to permits.

Any affected person may appeal permit issuance, denial of permit issuance, suspension, revocation, and terms and conditions of a permit.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 0**  **4 7** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. COREY MICHAEL LEFTWICH , Defendant

– Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior D istrict Judge. ( 4 : 00

- c r - 000 3 7

- H

- 1 )

Submitted : March 30 , 2010 Decided: April 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per cur iam opinion
. Corey Michael Leftwich , Appellant Pro Se
. Mary Jude Darrow, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Corey Michael Leftwich seeks to appeal the district
court’s o rder construing his motion for an evidentiary hearing as a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion and dismissing it on that basis
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Leftwich , No. 4:00

- cr - 00037

- H

- 1 (E.D.N.C. filed Dec. 16, 2009; entered Dec. 17, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED