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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2602

To reduce temporarily the duty on Formulations of Azoxystrobin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2005

Mr. TERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To reduce temporarily the duty on Formulations of 

Azoxystrobin.

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

3 SECTION 1. FORMULATIONS OF AZOXYSTROBIN. 

4 (a) CALENDAR YEAR 2006.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 

6 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

7 States is amended by inserting in numerical se8 quence the following new heading:
2

•HR 2602 IH 

‘‘ 9902.90.02 Formulations of 

Azoxystrobin which include 

Azoxystrobin Technical - 

benzeneacetic acid, 2-[[6-(2-

cyanophenoxy)–4-

pyrimidinyl]oxy}-alpha-

(Methoxymethylene)-methyl 

ester,(alphaE)- (CAS No. 

131860–33–8) (provided for 

in subheading 3808.20.15) .. 6.14% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2006 ’’. 

1 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made 

2 by paragraph (1) applies to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

5 (b) CALENDAR YEAR 2007.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.90.02 of the 

7 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, as 

8 added by subsection (a), is amended—

9 (A) by striking ‘‘6.14%’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘6.15%’’; and 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘On or before 12/31/2006’’ 

12 and inserting ‘‘On or before 12/31/2007’’. 

13 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

14 by paragraph (1) shall take effect on January 1, 

15 2007. 

16 (c) CALENDAR YEAR 2008.—

17 (1) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.90.02 of the 

18 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, as 

19 added by subsection (a) and amended by subsection 

20 (b), is further amended—
3

•HR 2602 IH 

1 (A) by striking ‘‘6.15%’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘6.17%’’; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘On or before 12/31/2007’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘On or before 12/31/2008’’. 

5 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

6 by paragraph (1) shall take effect on January 1, 

7 2008.

Æ
Case 3:08-cv-01687-CRB   Document 12   Filed 04/07/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:08-cv-01687-CRB   Document 12   Filed 04/07/10   Page 2 of 2
#### § 221.13 Non-impairment of the Guarantee.

The full faith and credit of the United States of America is pledged to the performance of this Guarantee. The Guarantee shall not be affected or impaired by any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, A.I.D., the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any amount with respect to any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the claiming Noteholder, is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became a Noteholder.
Case 3:08-cv-03401-EMC Document 146 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-03401-EMC Document 146 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Madeline Adinolfi, Respondent. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

Motion for an order fixing the fees and disbursements of William James Lake, Esq., attorney for the claimant-respondent herein. Motion granted, and his fees are hereby allowed and fixed in the sum of $150 and his disbursements are allowed in the sum of $33.05. Present ■ — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Aleksander Rasic, Petitioner, v Richard Roberts, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, et al., Respondents.

[717 NYS2d 41]

—Determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dated June 7, 1999, which, after a hearing, issued a certificate of eviction against petitioner, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and so much of the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 as is transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Huff, J.], entered on or about December 17, 1999, dismissed; and so much of said order, entered on or about December 17, 1999, as held that respondent Mutual Redevelopment Houses did not waive the right to seek petitioner’s eviction by acceptance of rent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*121Respondent’s determination that petitioner had not established that he was a “family member,” as defined in 28 RCNY 3-02 (p), was supported by substantial evidence (see, *Matter of Blanco v Popolizio,*190 AD2d 554, 555, citing *300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180).

The court properly found that, by accepting payment from petitioner, respondent Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. did not waive its rights to enforce its occupancy requirements and seek petitioner’s eviction. Both the occupancy agreement covering the apartment in issue and 28 RCNY 3-02 (o) (3) (i) provide that acceptance of rent/carrying charges shall not be deemed a waiver of rights, and such provisions are enforceable *(see, Finkelstein v Mutual Redevelopment Houses,*186 AD2d 90, citing *Jefpaul Garage Corp. v Presbyterian Hosp.,*61 NY2d 442, 446). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.
### §3173. Repealed. Pub. L. 108–373, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 27, 2004, 118 Stat. 1767

Section, Pub. L. 89–136, title IV, §403, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3609, related to incentives for projects in economic development districts.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3173, Pub. L. 89–136, title IV, §405, as added Pub. L. 94–487, title I, §117, Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2335, directed furnishing of unemployment rate information by either Federal Government or State, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(a).

A prior section 403 of Pub. L. 89–136 was classified to section 3171 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(a).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jerry L. Crawford, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs, unless appellant perfects appeal, files note of issue, and files and serves record and brief on or before August 1, 1960 and is ready for argument at the September Term of this court, in which event the motion is denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### §§ 144.131-144.139 [Reserved]
### §3032i. Demonstration and support projects for legal assistance for older individuals

#### (a) Program authorized

The Assistant Secretary shall make grants and enter into contracts, in order to—

(1) provide a national legal assistance support system (operated by one or more grantees or contractors) of activities to State and area agencies on aging for providing, developing, or supporting legal assistance for older individuals, including—

(A) case consultations;

(B) training;

(C) provision of substantive legal advice and assistance; and

(D) assistance in the design, implementation, and administration of legal assistance delivery systems to local providers of legal assistance for older individuals; and

(2) support demonstration projects to expand or improve the delivery of legal assistance to older individuals with social or economic needs.

#### (b) Assurances

Any grants or contracts made under subsection (a)(2) shall contain assurances that the requirements of section 3027(a)(11) of this title are met.

#### (c) Assistance

To carry out subsection (a)(1), the Assistant Secretary shall make grants to or enter into contracts with nonprofit organizations experienced in providing support and technical assistance on a nationwide basis to States, area agencies on aging, legal assistance providers, ombudsmen, elder abuse prevention programs, and other organizations interested in the legal rights of older individuals.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title IV, §420, as added Pub. L. 106–501, title IV, §401, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2265; amended Pub. L. 114–144, §5(c), Apr. 19, 2016, 130 Stat. 342.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 420 of Pub. L. 89–73 was classified to section 3034 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 106–501.

#### Amendments

2016—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–144 struck out "national" before "nonprofit organizations".
§ 519.605 Inspector General report. ( a ) The Inspector General, or other official as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, of each agency shall prepare and submit to Congress each year, commencing with submission of the President's Budget in 1991, an evaluation of the compliance of that agency with, and the effectiveness of, the requirements herein. The evaluation may include any recommended changes that may be necessary to strengthen or improve the requirements.
( b ) In the case of an agency that does not have an Inspector General, the agency official comparable to an Inspector General shall prepare and submit the annual report, or, if there is no such comparable official, the head of the agency shall prepare and submit the annual report.
( c ) The annual report shall be submitted at the same time the agency submits its annual budget justifications to Congress.
( d ) The annual report shall include the following: All alleged violations relating to the agency's covered Federal actions during the year covered by the report, the actions taken by the head of the agency in the year covered by the report with respect to those alleged violations and alleged violations in previous years, and the amounts of civil penalties imposed by the agency in the year covered by the report.
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

281The September 3, 2010 hearing date before the undersigned is vacated.

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

KFD ENTERPRISES, INC, et al. 

Plaintiff,

    v.

CITY OF EUREKA, et al.,

Defendants.                                                                      /

And Related Counterclaims, Cross-claims,and Third-Party Claims.                                                                      /

No. C 08-4571 MMC

ORDER REFERRING TO MAGISTRATEJUDGE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TOCOMPEL

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, defendant, counter-claimant, and cross-claimant

City of Eureka’s Motion to Compel, filed July 29, 2010, and all further discovery matters,

are hereby REFERRED to a Magistrate Judge to be heard and considered at the

convenience of the assigned Magistrate Judge’s calendar.

Counsel will be advised of the date, time and place of the next appearance by notice

from the assigned Magistrate Judge’s chambers.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2010                                                       MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04571-SC   Document 293   Filed 08/02/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T19:55:07-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4270 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to suspend bonus authority with 

respect to the Postmaster General and certain other postal officials 

in any year in which a postal retail facility or mail processing facility 

is closed, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2012 

Ms. HOCHUL (for herself, Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia, and Mrs. NOEM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to suspend bonus 

authority with respect to the Postmaster General and 

certain other postal officials in any year in which a 

postal retail facility or mail processing facility is closed, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Postal Executive Ac5 countability Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4270 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON BONUS AUTHORITY. 

2 Section 404(d) of title 39, United States Code, is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(7) RESTRICTION ON BONUS AUTHORITY.— 

5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No bonus or other reward 

6 may, under authority of section 3686 or any other 

7 provision of law, be made to the Postmaster General 

8 or any other officer of the Postal Service in a senior 

9 executive position in any year in which any postal 

10 retail facility or mail processing facility is closed. 

11 ‘‘(B) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this para12 graph— 

13 ‘‘(i) the term ‘postal retail facility’ means 

14 a post office, post office branch, post office 

15 classified station, or other facility which is oper16 ated by the Postal Service, and the primary 

17 function of which is to provide retail postal 

18 services; and 

19 ‘‘(ii) the term ‘mail processing facility’ 

20 means a processing and distribution center, 

21 processing and distribution facility, network dis22 tribution center, or other facility which is oper23 ated by the Postal Service, and the primary 

24 function of which is to sort and process mail.’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4270 IH

1 SEC. 3. CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsections (b) and (c) of section 

3 3686 of title 39, United States Code, are repealed. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3686(d) of 

5 such title is amended by striking ‘‘period which would not 

6 have been allowable but for the provisions of subsection 

7 (b) or (c);’’ and inserting ‘‘period;’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James A. O’Connor, Appellant.

Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions, New York County, rendered on July 7, 1961, convicting defendant of the offense of disorderly conduct and sentencing the defendant to 60 days in the Workhouse, unanimously reversed and vacated, without costs, on the law and on the facts, and the matter remanded to the Court of Special Sessions, with leave to the defendant, if he be so advised, to apply for withdrawal of his plea of guilty and, in any event, for appropriate action by the District Attorney and the court upon the remand. The jurisdiction of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York to accept defendant’s plea of guilty to the offense of disorderly conduct and to convict him thereupon depended upon compliance with the provisions of subdivision 9 of section 31 of the New York City Criminal Courts Act. Here, there was a failure to substantially comply with such provisions. Particularly, there was a failure here on the part of the Assistant District Attorney to state in open court and upon the record the reasons for his recommendation for the acceptance of the defendant’s plea of guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. By the very wording of the statute, it would appear that compliance with the statutory provisions in this connection was a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the court to convict for the offense. *(Cf. Matter of McDonald*
      *616v. *Sobel,*272 App. Div. 455, affd. 297 N. Y. 679.) In any event, we conclude that, when such noncomplianee is raised by the defendant directly on an appeal from the conviction, the conviction with such deficiency in the record should not stand. However, on a withdrawal -by the defendant of his -plea of guilty to the offense, he will stand charged on the information as filed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
#### George Whitmore, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

In Respondent. action to recover damages for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 1, 1977, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff-appellant’s motion is, in effect, a motion to strike those portions of defendant-respondent’s answer which deny that the city is liable for the torts of the District Attorneys of New York and Kings Counties. The motion *796was properly denied since a motion "to strike as sham” no longer exists under the CPLR (see *Chicago Dressed Beef Co. v Gold Medal Packing Corp.,*22 AD2d 1010). We do not reach the question of whether the immunity accorded a District Attorney inures to the benefit of the city (but see, *Schubert v Schubert Wagon Co.,*249 NY 253; *Carter v Carlson,*447 F2d 358, revd on other grounds *sub nom. District of Columbia v Carter,*409 US 418). Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
### §4852c. Guidelines for lead-based paint hazard evaluation and reduction activities

Not later than 12 months after October 28, 1992, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control), shall issue guidelines for the conduct of federally supported work involving risk assessments, inspections, interim controls, and abatement of lead-based paint hazards. Such guidelines shall be based upon criteria that measure the condition of the housing (and the presence of children under age 6 for the purposes of risk assessments) and shall not be based upon criteria that measure the health of the residents of the housing.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title X, §1017, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3909.)

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

#### Change of Name

Centers for Disease Control changed to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by Pub. L. 102–531, title III, §312, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3504.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FOR THE SIX MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 WAS FILED WITH
FORM 10-Q ON AUGUST 16, 1999, REFLECTING THE MERGER WITH M-R-GROUP PLC UNDER THE
POOLING-OF-INTERESTS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FILED
HEREIN RESTATES THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 TO REFLECT SUCH MERGER UNDER
THE PURCHASE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             690
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,894
<PP&E>                                          43,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 279,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,716
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           117
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   279,304
<SALES>                                        109,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,202
<CGS>                                           70,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,957
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,744
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,438
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,306
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59


</TABLE>
#### VOUGHT v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 3, 1905.)

Street Railroads—Negligence—Injury to Pedestrian.

In an action for injuries to a pedestrian by a street car, evidence *held,*Insufficient to show negligence on the part of defendant.

Giegerich, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eleventh District.

Action by Thomas W. Vought against the New York City Railway Company. From a judgment of the Municipal Court for plaintiff after a trial before the justice and a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, GIEGERICH, and McCALL, JJ.

William E. Weaver, for appellant.

Jacoby & Dalberg (Melvin H. Dalberg, of counsel), for respondent.

SCOTT, J.

I am unable to find any evidence in the case showing negligence on the part of the defendant. Certainly negligence cannot be attributed to the motorman of the south-bound car, and there is nothing to show whether the motorman of the uptown car was negligent in starting his car or not. For all that appears in the case, the plaintiff, if he had proceeded across the street, would have safely cleared the car. It is undoubtedly true that, if the evidence showed that, owing to the negligent act of the motorman of the uptown car in starting prematurely, so as to place plaintiff in imminent peril, the latter would not be charged with contributory negligence merely because he jumped back, and thereby reached a place of danger from the down car. The difficulty with the plaintiff’s case, however, is that it is not shown that by any act of the motorman of the uptown car plaintiff was in fact put in peril. For all that appears, it was entirely unnecessary for him to have stepped back at all. The motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted, as the evidence stood.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

McCALL, J., concurs.

GIEGERICH, J.

(dissenting). The plaintiff, a letter carrier, received the injuries complained of while crossing Broadway at the corner of Houston street. He was crossing from the west to the east on the line of the southerly crosswalk. The evidence further establishes that when he started to cross he saw; a north-bound car standing just below the southerly crosswalk and a south-bound car standing just above the northerly crosswalk. The police officer then on duty gave him the word to cross. As he stepped upon the easterly track, the car on that track started, whereupon he had to step back, as he testified, and the south-bound car on the other *236track struck him. Some of the defendant’s witnesses attempted to state the facts somewhat differently from the foregoing, but their testimony was inconsistent and conflicting. In my judgment, the verdict was right, and the damages awarded were moderate.

Some complaint is made of a remark of the plaintiff’s counsel in the course of the trial, but the result does not indicate that.that remark had any effect on the jury.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.