alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Presidential Documents 74933

Presidential Determination No. 2005–09 of December 6, 2004

Waiver of Restrictions on Assistance to Russia under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 and Title V of the 

FREEDOM Support Act 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 1306 of the national 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314), I 

hereby certify that waiving the restrictions contained in subsection (d) of 

section 1203 of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 (22 U.S.C. 

5952), as amended, and the requirements contained in section 502 of the 

FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5852) during Fiscal Year 2005 with respect 

to the Russian Federation is important to the national security interests 

of the United States. 

You are authorized and directed to transmit to the Congress this certification 

and the associated report (including its classified annex) that has been 

prepared by my Administration consistent with section 1306(b) of Public 

Law 107–314. You are further authorized and directed to arrange for the 

publication of this certification in the 

W

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 6, 2004. 

[FR Doc. 04–27465

Filed 12–13–04; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P
Editorial Note on Part 201
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

§ 201.62 Responsibilities of borrower/grantee and of supplier. ( a ) *Responsibilities of borrower/grantee.* The borrower/grantee shall: ( 1 ) When required by USAID, develop and periodically update, or cooperate with USAID in the development and updating of, lists of importers who have traditionally imported the commodities which may be purchased under the loan or grant. Such listings shall be by commodity groupings selected by USAID, cover all commodities eligible for financing, and, to the extent such information is available, show the names and addresses of all importers, regardless of the source from which their imports originated.
( 2 ) Insure that the importer ( i ) Procures in accordance with the conditions set forth in subpart C as applicable, and
( ii ) Except as provided otherwise in § 201.22, pays no more than the lowest available competitive price, including transportation cost, for the commodity.
( b ) *Responsibility of supplier.* In accordance with the provisions contained in the Supplier's Certificate, which the supplier must execute in order to receive payment, the supplier is responsible for compliance with the provisions of this subpart G, other than paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 213.37 Referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice. ( a ) The CFO, through USAID's cross-servicing agreement with Fiscal Service and by direct action, refers to DOJ for litigation all claims on which the Federal Government has taken aggressive collection actions but which could not be collected, compromised, suspended, or terminated. USAID makes such referrals as early as possible, consistent with aggressive Agency collection action, and within the period for bringing a timely suit against the debtor. Unless otherwise provided by DOJ's regulations or procedures, USAID refers for litigation debts of more than $2,500 but less than $1 million to DOJ's Nationwide Central Intake Facility, as required by the instructions for the Claims-Collection Litigation Report (CCLR). USAID shall refer debts of more than $1 million to the Civil Division at DOJ.
( b ) The CFO will clearly indicate on the CCLR the actions the DOJ should take on the referred claim.
[67 FR 47258, July 18, 2002, as amended at 86 FR 31146, June 11, 2021]
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS DANIELS,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT . AYERS, JR., Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-2934 SI (PR)

JUDGMENT

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of

Respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED: March 9, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02934-SI Document 10 Filed 03/09/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Michael A. Finnigan, Appellant, v Rochester Institute of Technology, Respondent.

[716 NYS2d 214]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. We disagree, however, with the court’s reasoning. Plaintiff sustained an electric shock while standing on a stepladder wiring light fixtures, and he fell from the stepladder. Although plaintiff lacerated his left arm, neither plaintiff nor the eyewitness to the accident could recall whether that injury resulted from the electric shock or the subsequent fall. If the injury resulted from the electric shock, defendant is not liable for that injury under Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see, Schlueter v Health Care Plan,*168 AD2d 985). In attempting to establish that the injury resulted from the fall from the stepladder, plaintiff submitted the affirmation of a physician specializing in environmental medicine and ergonometrics. Based on his examination of plaintiff and his review of plaintiff’s hospital record, the physician stated that “it is unlikely that there was enough force generated during the initial slip” caused by reaction to the shock; that the fall from the stepladder “would generate enough force to cause such a deep laceration”; and that “it is my opinion that the left elbow laceration and ulnar nerve transection most likely occurred during the fall phase.”

In denying the motion, the court assumed, arguendo, that plaintiff met his initial burden by submitting the physician’s affirmation but concluded that evidence that plaintiff and the eyewitness could not recall when plaintiff incurred the injury was sufficient to raise a factual issue. We conclude, however, that plaintiff did not meet his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). The hospital record contains conflicting hearsay statements whether plaintiff sustained his injury by contacting the sharp metal edge of the light fixture or a piece of glass and whether plaintiff sustained the injury when his body reacted to the electric shock *(see, Kingston v Hunter Highlands,*222 AD2d 952, 953-954). Moreover, the statement of the qualifications of the physician does not establish that he has the requisite expertise concerning electric shock injuries to render an opinion on this issue. *893(Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurl-butt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
PUBLIC LAW 115–349—DEC. 21, 2018 132 STAT. 5059 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3383: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Sept. 26, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–349 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the flood control project in Sedgwick County, Kansas, commonly known 

as the Wichita-Valley Center Flood Control Project, as the ‘‘M.S. ‘Mitch’ Mitchell 

Floodway’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The flood control project in Sedgwick County, Kansas, commonly known as the Wichita–Valley Center Flood Control Project, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘M.S. ‘Mitch’ Mitchell 

Floodway’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the flood control project 

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

‘‘M.S. ‘Mitch’ Mitchell Floodway’’. 

Approved December 21, 2018. 

Dec. 21, 2018 

[H.R. 3383] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

COREY MICHAEL LEFTWICH,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-00037-H-1)

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

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam 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 order 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
#### Solomon Kirkwood, as Administrator of the Estate of Henry D. Kirkwood, Deceased, Respondent, v. Albert Dallas, Defendant, and George Cheatham, Appellant.

Order, dated May 26, 1960, as denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the above-entitled action for lack of prosecution, affirmed, without costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel and Rabin, JJ.; Valente and McNally, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and grant the motion to dismiss. No opinion.
#### § 37.300 Core Principle 3—Swaps not readily susceptible to manipulation.

The swap execution facility shall permit trading only in swaps that are not readily susceptible to manipulation.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report of Alpine Income Property Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P. Albright,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations
of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|February 21, 2020 |  | /s/    JOHNP. ALBRIGHT                                                     
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | John P. Albright                                                           
|                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)
Schedule of Compensation for Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Schedule of Compensation for Named Executive Officers 
  

									
	 Named Executive Officer

	  	2005 Short Term
Incentive Award

	  	2005 Long Term Incentive Award (1)

	  	2006 Base
Salary


	 Thomas A. Carr
	  	$	653,400	  	36,792 common shares	  	$	495,000
	 Philip L. Hawkins
	  	$	528,000	  	26,163 common shares	  	$	440,000
	 Stephen E. Riffee
	  	$	330,000	  	13,421 common shares	  	$	320,000
	 Karen B. Dorigan
	  	$	195,000	  	8,384 common shares	  	$	312,000
	 Linda A. Madrid
	  	$	183,125	  	6,541 common shares	  	$	293,500



	(1)	Under the terms of the award, 25% will vest on the anniversary of the grant (January 25) for a four-year period.
#### Brooklyn Majestic Theatre Company, Respondent, v. Vitagraph Company of America, Appellant.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
### §19057. Food-energy-water research

The Director shall make awards on a competitive basis to institutions of higher education or non-profit organizations (or consortia of such institutions or organizations) to—

(1) support research to significantly advance our understanding of the food-energy-water system through quantitative and computational modeling, including support for relevant cyberinfrastructure;

(2) develop real-time, cyber-enabled interfaces that improve understanding of the behavior of food-energy-water systems and increase decision support capability;

(3) support research that will lead to innovative solutions to critical food-energy-water system problems; and

(4) grow the scientific workforce capable of studying and managing the food-energy-water system, through education and other professional development.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10348, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1560.)
From: Thomas, Amanda [ mailto:Amanda_L._Thomas@omb.eop.gov ]

Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:55 PM

To: Cogliano, Gerai n < Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov >

Cc: Jones, Danielle < Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov >

Subject: conf call

Gerain, would you call me for a quick call on the one sentence in the RIA? I don’t think I can agree with

EPA’s edits and would like to see whether this is a matter of facts (e.g., EPA can produce the original

RMP that demonstrate the costs associated with compliance was in fact account for in the original

R IA. In other words, qualitative treatment in the original RIA would not be satisfactory in this case) or

whether my suggested edits are more accurate description of EPA’s RIA. Thanks! Amanda
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

QUESTIONS FOR

ORAL ARGUMENT

No new briefs, please, but be prepared on the following at oral argument:

1. During the class period, was there any statement by defendants that failed to

disclose the full amount invested in MBS?

2. Before the change, was MBS affirmatively represented to be an “industry”?

3. What is the law whether fine print can cure otherwise misleading large print?

4. If shareholders should have been allowed to vote on the change in industry

definitions, why would subsequent purchasers be entitled to recover for not

holding an earlier vote?

5. Since the change was disclosed, why didn’t plaintiffs sue to insist on a vote back

then? Why did they wait to see how the market would turn on MBS?

6. Given the large volume of the submissions, will counsel bring to the hearing an

agreed-on set of documents limited to the key prospectuses, with all references to

the MBS issue highlighted and tagged, the stack to be in chronological order. 

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 515 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Please, no more than six or seven key prospectuses (or the like). Time may be

precious at the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 515 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 2
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC et al

Defendant. /

No C 08-2272 VRW

ORDER

The court is in receipt of letters submitted by the

parties on January 11, 2010 addressing plaintiff’s request for

shortened time to obtain certain discovery responses. Docs #86,

87, 88. Having considered the parties’ respective positions, the

court grants plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel. In that

motion, plaintiff must identify not only the requests for

production or admission that she seeks responses to, but also the

specific fact issues that plaintiff expects that discovery will

produce enabling her to oppose defendant Globe’s motion for summary

judgment. For the reasons set forth in the court’s January 8, 2010

order (Doc #85), it is insufficient for plaintiff’s counsel to

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 89 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

state, as he did in his letter of 11 January (Doc #86), that “Facts

directly relevant to the event, Globe’s Affirmative defenses, or

The relationship between Northwest and Global” warrant such

discovery. Doc #86 at 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 89 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.17d-1 Examination for compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules. ( a ) Where a member of SIPC is a member of more than one self-regulatory organization, the Commission shall designate by written notice to one of such organizations responsibility for examining such member for compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules. In making such designations the Commission shall take into consideration the regulatory capabilities and procedures of the self-regulatory organizations, availability of staff, convenience of location, unnecessary regulatory duplication, and such other factors as the Commission may consider germane to the protection of investors, the cooperation and coordination among self-regulatory organizations, and the development of a national market system and a national system for the clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
( b ) Upon designation of responsibility pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, all other self-regulatory organizations of which such person is a member shall be relieved of such responsibility to the extent specified.
( c ) After the Commission has acted pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, any self-regulatory organization relieved of responsibility with respect to a member may notify customers of, and persons doing business with, such member of the limited nature of its responsibility for such member's compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules.
[41 FR 18809, May 7, 1976]
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANA RAMIREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREENPOINT MORTGAGEFUNDING, INC.,

Defendant.

NO. C08-0369 TEH

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO FILEUNDER SEAL

Plaintiffs have filed two motions to seal portions of their class certification moving

papers and state that they have done so because the papers reference documents designated

as confidential by Defendant.  However, the parties have failed to comply with Civil Local

Rule 79-5(d).  Pursuant to that rule, the Court could simply make the submitted documents

part of the public record.  However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will grant

Defendant until March 29, 2010, to file and serve “a declaration establishing that the

designated information is sealable” along with “a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order,”

or else to “withdraw the designation of confidentiality.”  Civ. L.R. 79-5(d).  The parties shall

meet and confer and, assuming that Defendant does not intend to withdraw all related

designations of confidentiality, Plaintiffs have until the same date to “lodge with the Court a

redacted version of the document, memorandum or other filing to be placed in the public

record if the Court approves the requested sealing order.”  Id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   03/23/10                                                                         THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-00369-TEH   Document 170   Filed 03/23/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T00:58:10-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27547]



[[Page 75347]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance 
Organization

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 30, 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 Mortgage Industry 
Standards Maintenance Organization (``MISMO'') 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 Mortgage 
Industry Standards Maintenance Organization, Washington, DC. The nature 
and scope of MISMO's standards development activities are: to develop, 
promote, and maintain voluntary electronic commerce standards for 
electronic mortgages and for the electronic exchange of data within the 
commercial/multifamily and residential mortgage industries.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-27547 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Celia D. Patten, Plaintiff, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Transit Authority et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. New York Paving, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant; Professional Contracting Methods, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 670]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third- and fourth-party defendant New York Paving, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated June 28, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment to . dismiss all claims and cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The .Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The proof submitted on the motion showed, *inter alia,*the existence of a factual question as to whether the appellant was responsible, at least in part, for the complained-of condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries *(see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.