alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §247d–2. Earlier development of diagnostic tests

The Secretary may contract with public and private entities, as appropriate, to increase capacity in the rapid development, validation, manufacture, and dissemination of diagnostic tests, as appropriate, to State, local, and Tribal health departments and other appropriate entities for immediate public health response activities to address an emerging infectious disease with respect to which a public health emergency is declared under section 247d of this title, or that has significant potential to cause such a public health emergency.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §319B, as added Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title II, §2303(b), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5758.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 247d–2, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §319B, as added Pub. L. 106–505, title I, §102, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2317; amended Pub. L. 107–188, title I, §111(2), June 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 611, related to grants to States to assess public health needs, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–417, title II, §204(b)(1), Dec. 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 2851.
(December 30, 1960)

In decisions Nos. 1-38 the court is as follows: Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Claude Poole, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County denying appellant’s application for a writ of error *coram nobis.*The basis of appellant’s application is that he was not represented by the attorney he had retained, one Carl Goldstein, at the time of his arraignment on the charge of first degree murder. The minutes of the arraignment indicate that Benjamin Goldstein, the brother and law partner of Carl Goldstein, appeared *702for the appellant. Benjamin Goldstein testified at the hearing below that his brother was out of town on the day of the arraignment, that he appeared and spoke to the appellant who consented to his appearance on appellant’s behalf and that he advised him how to plead. The appellant testified that he had never met Benjamin Goldstein and that no one represented him at his arraignment. At the time of the arraignment the defendant plead not guilty and the ease was transferred from Supreme Court to County Court for trial. When the appellant later plead guilty to a reduced charge he was represented by Carl Goldstein as he had been at the time of a preliminary examination held before the arraignment. The court below denied the application finding that Benjamin Goldstein had represented the appellant at his arraignment and that no objection was made by appellant to such representation. The appellant was afforded a full hearing and he has failed to demonstrate any error or deprivation of a constitutional right entitling him to a writ of error *coram nobis.*Order unanimously affirmed, without costs.
#### James C. Barber, Appellant-Respondent, v Ronald Helwig et al., Respondents-Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[716 NYS2d 633]

—Appeal and cross appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Matter of Eric D.*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051). (Appeals from Judgment of Allegany County Court, Nenno, J. — RPAPL.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
#### § 6.101 Purpose.

This part effectuates section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which amended section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by Executive agencies or the United States Postal Service. This part also implements section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, with respect to the accessibility of electronic and information technology developed, procured, maintained, or used by the agency.

[52 FR 45628, Dec. 1, 1987, as amended at 66 FR 51863, Oct. 11, 2001]
(November 23, 1960)

#### In the Matter of Ben Ross, Petitioner, v. Irving H. Saypol, Respondent.

. Motion to dismiss petition as a matter of law denied, with leave to the respondent to serve and file an answer to the petition. The petitioner is directed to file with the Clerk of this court five additional copies of the petition, notice of motion and the exhibits annexed thereto, except Exhibit D, on or before December 6, 1960. The respondent is directed to serve one copy of his answer upon the attorney for the petitioner and file the original and five additional copies thereof with this court within 10 days after service of a copy of the order herein, with notice of entry thereof, upon his attorney. This proceeding is added to the Enumerated Calendar of this court for the January 1961 Term, to be argued or submitted when reached. The petitioner is directed to serve one typewritten copy of petitioner’s points upon the attorney for the respondent and file six typewritten copies thereof with this court, together with a notice of argument for the January 1961 Term, on or before December 12, 1960. The respondent is directed to serve one typewritten copy of the respondent’s points upon the attorney for the petitioner and file six typewritten copies thereof with this court on or before December 27, 1960. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Arnold Gelband, Respondent, against Queen Mary Bag and Luggage Shops et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant worked in a luggage store and this required movement of heavy merchandise, including luggage, trunks and bundles of umbrellas. In 1955 claimant noticed a pain in his groin, and Ms physician diagnosed this as due to a small hernia. Claimant continued to work. In January, 1957 he felt sharp pains and cramps while carrying a bundle of 70 or 80 pounds. On examination it was found he had a large scrotal hernia which was corrected by surgery on March 4, 1957. The Referee found that claimant did not suffer an accident in January, 1957; and that the claim was filed too late in March, 1957 for an occupational disease, manifested in 1955. The board on a sufficient medical record found an occupational disease; but the date of disablement was fixed as March 4, 1957, the date of the surgical operation. Since the claimant’s ability to earn full wages is the test of disablement for occupational disease; and since claimant did earn full wages until the date of his operation, the board’s decision is right. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 42; *Matter of Nichols*v. *Colonial Beacon Oil Go.,*284 App. Div. 581; *Matter of Muniah*v. *ACF Industries,*7 A D 2d 258.) Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### § 1507.10 Exemptions.

No Foundation system or systems of records, as such, are exempted from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a, as permitted under certain conditions by 5 U.S.C. 552a (j) and (k).
§ 140.13 Notification to foreign entities and individuals. ( a ) Unless otherwise determined under § 140.13(b), if a determination has been made that assistance to a foreign entity or individual is to be withheld, suspended, or terminated under this part, the agency administering such assistance shall so inform the affected entity or individual. Except as the agency administering such assistance, the Country Narcotics Coordinator, and the agency or agencies that are the source of information that formed the basis for withholding, suspending, or terminating assistance may otherwise agree, the entity or individual shall be notified solely of the statutory basis for withholding, suspending, or terminating assistance.
( b ) Before such notification, the Country Narcotics Coordinator shall be responsible for ascertaining, in coordination with the investigating agency, that notification would not interfere with an on-going criminal investigation. If the investigating agency believes that there is a significant risk of such interference, the Country Narcotics Coordinator, in coordination with the investigating agency, shall determine the means of compliance with this statute that best minimizes such risk.
(April 12, 1962)

#### Samuel Zaager, Appellant, v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Antonio Roman, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 498]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 2, 1999, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his employment as a general manager for a food service when, after receiving a written warning, he again left an office safe in the “day lock” position in violation of the employer’s policy. Given claimant’s demonstrated failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures and the circumstances surrounding his termination, we find there to be substantial evidence supporting the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct *(see, Matter of Derian [Sweeney],*239 AD2d 722).

Claimant’s remaining contentions, including his claim of abuse of discretion by the Administrative Law Judge in reopening the matter following the employer’s initial default *(see, Matter of Scott [New York City Dept. of Personnel*— Commis*sioner of Labor],*265 AD2d 777), have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
### §17071. Energy Code improvements applicable to manufactured housing

#### (a) Establishment of standards

#### (1) In general

Not later than 4 years after December 19, 2007, the Secretary shall by regulation establish standards for energy efficiency in manufactured housing.

#### (2) Notice, comment, and consultation

Standards described in paragraph (1) shall be established after—

(A) notice and an opportunity for comment by manufacturers of manufactured housing and other interested parties; and

(B) consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who may seek further counsel from the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee.

#### (b) Requirements

#### (1) International Energy Conservation Code

The energy conservation standards established under this section shall be based on the most recent version of the International Energy Conservation Code (including supplements), except in cases in which the Secretary finds that the code 1 is not cost-effective, or a more stringent standard would be more cost-effective, based on the impact of the code 1 on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and operating costs.

#### (2) Considerations

The energy conservation standards established under this section may—

(A) take into consideration the design and factory construction techniques of manufactured homes;

(B) be based on the climate zones established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development rather than the climate zones under the International Energy Conservation Code; and

(C) provide for alternative practices that result in net estimated energy consumption equal to or less than the specified standards.

#### (3) Updating

The energy conservation standards established under this section shall be updated not later than—

(A) 1 year after December 19, 2007; and

(B) 1 year after any revision to the International Energy Conservation Code.

#### (c) Enforcement

Any manufacturer of manufactured housing that violates a provision of the regulations under subsection (a) is liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not exceeding 1 percent of the manufacturer's retail list price of the manufactured housing.

(Pub. L. 110–140, title IV, §413, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1601.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the date that is 1 day after Dec. 19, 2007, see section 1601 of Pub. L. 110–140, set out as a note under section 1824 of Title 2, The Congress.

1 So in original. Probably should be "Code".
Skip to content

En español

# National Cancer Institute

## at the National Institutes of Health

          - 
          - 
          - 
          - 
          - 
          - 
          - 

            - Questions About Cancer?
            - 1-800-4-CANCER
            - LiveHelp Online Chat
            - NCI Home
            - Contact Us
            - Policies
            - Accessibility
            - Viewing Files
            - FOIA
            - Site Help
            - Site Map
**Follow Us:**            - Twitter
            - YouTube
            - Facebook
            - RSS

A Service of the National Cancer Institute
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
#### § 1306.22 Discharge.

Once a debt has been closed out for accounting purposes and collection has been terminated, the debt is discharged. MCC must report discharged debt as income to the debtor to the Internal Revenue Service per 26 U.S.C. 6050P and 26 CFR 1.6050P-1.
010036-12 366235 V1 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO 

SHORTEN TIME. - 08-cv-01510 WHA 

Reed R. Kathrein (139304) 

Peter E. Borkon (212596) 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 

Berkeley, CA 94710 

Telephone: (510) 725-3000 

Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 

reed@hbsslaw.com 

peterb@hbsslaw.com 

Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice) 

Sean R. Matt (Pro Hac Vice) 

Erin K. Flory (Pro Hac Vice) 

Lisa M. Hasselman (Pro Hac Vice) 

Robert F. Lopez (Pro Hac Vice) 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

Telephone: (206) 623-7292 

Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 

steve@hbsslaw.com 

sean@hbsslaw.com 

erin@hbsslaw.com 

lisah@hbsslaw.com 

robl@hbsslaw.com 

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff YieldPlus Investor Group 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

IN RE SCHWAB CORP. SECURITIES 

LITIGATION 

 No. 08-cv-01510 WHA 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

All Actions 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SHORTEN 

TIME FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF 

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF 

FEDERAL SECURITIES CLAIMS 

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 699 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 2
- 1 - 

010036-12 366235 V1 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO 

SHORTEN TIME - 08-cv-01510 WHA 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Shorten Time for 

Consideration of the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement of Federal Securities 

Claims. 

Upon considering the foregoing Motion and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 

Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. The Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement 

of Federal Securities Claims will be considered along with other matters already scheduled to be 

considered at the April 26, 2010 Pretrial Conference. 

DATED: 

 HON. WILLIAM A. ALSUP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

April 23, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 699 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 2
EXIBIT 99.2



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New York Regional Rail Corporation
(the Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Wayne Eastman, Interim President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) 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.

/s/ Wayne Eastman
-----------------
Wayne Eastman,
Interim President
November 14, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph Balsamo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the County Court, Kings County, dated June 9, 1959, which denied, without a hearing, his *coram nobis*application to vacate a judgment of that court, rendered October 22, 1956, convicting him, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to serve a term of 15’ to 30 years as a third felony offender. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court *(People*v. *Balsamo,*5 A D 2d 696). This *coram nobis*application was made on the ground that defendant’s constitutional rights had been violated in that he had been indicted and tried for the crimes of robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree and grand larceny in the first degree, but the trial court submitted to the jury only the robbery count and held in abeyance the other charges. It appears that such procedure was adopted by the trial court upon the stipulation of counsel and with defendant’s express consent. Order affirmed. The alleged error is a matter of record which could have been raised on the appeal from the judgment of conviction and, under the circumstances, the remedy of *coram nobis*may not be invoked (of. *People*v. *Sadness,*300 N. Y. 69, 74; *People*v. *Silverman,*3 N Y 2d 200, 202). We express no opinion as to defendant’s rights and remedies, if any, arising from his alleged mental disorder prior to and subsequent to his conviction, as no such question was presented in the court below. Appeal from decision dismissed. No appeal lies therefrom. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
July 14, 2010 

UNITED STATES

D

I

S

TRICT COURT

NORTHERN

DIST

RICT

OF CALIFORNIA

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED

Judge

Charles R. Breyer
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Cornelius O’Connell, as President of Local 584 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Respondent, and Babylon Milk & Cream Co., Inc., Appellant.

Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 857.]
### §2210i. Secure transfer of nuclear materials

(a) The Commission shall establish a system to ensure that materials described in subsection (b), when transferred or received in the United States by any party pursuant to an import or export license issued pursuant to this chapter, are accompanied by a manifest describing the type and amount of materials being transferred or received. Each individual receiving or accompanying the transfer of such materials shall be subject to a security background check conducted by appropriate Federal entities.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by the Commission by regulation, the materials referred to in subsection (a) are byproduct materials, source materials, special nuclear materials, high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, and low-level radioactive waste (as defined in section 10101(16) of this title).

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §170I, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title VI, §656(a), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 813.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919, known as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 109–58, title VI, §656(c), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 814, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall take effect upon the issuance of regulations under subsection (b) [set out below], except that the background check requirement shall become effective on a date established by the Commission." [For issuance of regulations effective Feb. 23, 2007, see 72 F.R. 3025.]

#### Regulations

Pub. L. 109–58, title VI, §656(b), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 814, provided that: "Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 8, 2005], and from time to time thereafter as it considers necessary, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall issue regulations identifying radioactive materials or classes of individuals that, consistent with the protection of public health and safety and the common defense and security, are appropriate exceptions to the requirements of section 170D [probably means 170I] of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [42 U.S.C. 2210i], as added by subsection (a) of this section."

#### Effect on Other Law

Pub. L. 109–58, title VI, §656(d), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 814, provided that: "Nothing in this section [enacting this section and provisions set out as notes under this section] or the amendment made by this section shall waive, modify, or affect the application of chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code, part A of subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, part B of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, and title 23, United States Code."
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Sonia Cordova, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 551]

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 2, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed August 4, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

Claimant was discharged from her position as program director of a senior citizen center when, in violation of the employer’s established procedures, she purchased furniture without soliciting bids from vendors or obtaining the requisite written approval. Claimant was on probation at the time as the result of various complaints concerning her work performance. Given claimant’s knowing disregard of the employer’s purchasing policy and prior conduct, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct *(see generally, Matter of Celeiro [Dentsply Equip.*— Commissioner *of Labor],*254 AD2d 599; *Matter of Naraine [Sweeney],*245 AD2d 932, 933).

Furthermore, we reject claimant’s assertion that she was denied due process because the manager of the department which provided outside funding for the senior citizen center, whose authorization was needed for the furniture purchase, failed to respond to a subpoena. We find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that the manager’s testimony was unnecessary given claimant’s admission that she purchased the furniture in error and failed to follow the established purchasing procedures *(see, Matter of O’Connor [Howell*— Hartnett], 165 AD2d 946, 948; *cf., Matter of Ward [Commissioner of Labor],*256 AD2d 773, 774).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
#### § 38.851 Additional sources for compliance.

Applicants and designated contract markets may refer to the guidance and/or acceptable practices in appendix B of this part to demonstrate to the Commission compliance with the requirements of § 38.850 of this part.