alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEL-.801-561-967 3 Se p 12 , y U 14:2 b NO.UU 2 P .

203808 9 PGLRK P J . I I RAPIN G J)«t.o : 3 2/ 1 8/ 3 99 0 From : fituv e Hawthorn , OS U Rfctfio nV I J I To : Steve n Luftwig , Directo r RH D fJub.lont : Mldv«.1f t

SJ* g (NPL ) - Abandone d).,« b IV > .Imp : POI.RK P4 1 1 . JtACiKGROUN D SH:f i No : 7 3 ]>.l> . No r5 7 Rftp.porm c Authorit y : CISDCIi A NPl i St.atuc : Propose dNP1 , r>trtr t Date : 12/12/199 0 o f Actio n Memorandum : Rwjn nDvafto d 

## m. HEnpONs n A . ri1l.unt.U-r i Til* 1 * Midval f

{JJa aNP LJ>.1t o (proposed ) Jooatftr t .•spr-i^x.lm^tn l y lOip.t , 770 0 South , lUclva.le , Utah , conp.1f.ftij pr.1ni«rJ3 y o f ;<?K.UI . tw o ni1l].i.o nt o n o o f

rtlb g remwinJn K

/ro w aocsntiiry' w wort ho f <:d|j]>^ r nn d'Mm ! fl»nlt.!ln #i n th e arft a, an dI n lonato J jup t nort ho f

i-h*: : !>}j«ro nBten. 1 NP LoJtn' . Th e waotor ; foun do nt.h o t^t n ,'jjv ; oontimjnute dJ n p«r t wit h A nana ] yticn ] laborator y wn n obBurvec l o n th< »

chemlual s M>t \nrf.nova ] actio n wut J l y , « etecon dV>u1.!lcl.1n c (th e fsatp « bu.13d.jng ) t o contai n ch&rnicalF; . KlommahJ o ljqnjdc> , < p 'x1d: i *s ^



### an da lioror i fouric l o n th e njt« . initi^. l e«timntft o jndiorjto dnpprox.im«tt-s.'l y 2 .'>(>( ) t:onta.1.nfi mo f

variou w (3.1.?.e-r . o nrotfc . Col d>uu i nnow y condit.ion e continu e n t th e o.it « 13 . Afst-lonr , Take n Inventoryin g o f

approximatel y 107 0 oontadnarr t w« noomp'J^tr-j di n th e iiflt e buiJdin g bringin g th o tw o buildAnt ; tota J )."'. > ?ipr»r<iximat.o.l y '/dbOO . AFiteo l rrompr«Buo r nhe dilocntp. dMais t

oi l I.|K : A:«tft bui]d.in Rv?a c opene dnn davprox.lmatfcJ y 2 0 iicUl J tiUwV. ! c!oni.uiner nwer o found . H«x«rr i categorisatio n o f unknow n nompounrt e betfa ni n th e gat eEPflOSC l TEL=801-561-967 3 SE P12,9 0 14:2 6 No.00 2 P.0 5

« . (!o»jtirmcrhazard categorization, HO# rogation and Ki.au \ rut of compounds! in the the ffwte huj.1d.infl. Inventory and nt.utic: f:h<:m.1oaJ c o n Bite . Bul k unkriown o un d.la b pnc k c J) . Ke y ]nsuct c Non « t o report JV . COf. T INFORMATIO N

KKCI S TA T KP A Amr.un t

Rudficta d $ 7{>,OQ Q fiO.OU O 25,00 0 Coa t

B 1;o J)«1. « 41,00 0 1 3 ,00 0 7.00 0 BcllHIJC O

34,00 0 39>00 0 18,00 0 TOTAL 150,00 0 59,00 0 81,000
-
#### Village of Gainesville, Respondent, v Ronald W. Hotis et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Ronald W. Hotis, Appellant, v Board of Trustees of Village of Gainesville et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 826]—

Appeals from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered July 5, 2006. The judgment, among other things, granted plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief and denied the petition to annul a determination of respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Gainesville.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating that part of the second decretal paragraph denying petitioner-plaintiffs remaining claim for declaratory relief and by vacating the fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, the Village of Gainesville (Village), commenced an action to enjoin and restrain defendants, Ronald W Hotis (Hotis) and his wife, from violating its zoning law by keeping horses and more than two dogs on their property. Hotis then commenced a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding/ *1168declaratory judgment action seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village denying his application for a use variance and seeking a declaration that he has a valid nonconforming use of the property. Hotis does not address in his brief any issue concerning Supreme Court’s denial of his request for relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 and thus has abandoned any such issue *(see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora,*202 AD2d 984 [1994]). We agree with Hotis, however, that the court erred in denying his request for declaratory relief and in granting the Village injunctive relief without conducting a trial, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. There was no motion for summary judgment pending before the court and, in any event, we conclude on the record before us that the Village did not establish its entitlement to injunctive relief. There are triable issues of fact, including whether Hotis improperly expanded his preexisting nonconforming use by keeping six horses on the property, and whether he has a preexisting nonconforming use to operate a kennel on the property. We thus conclude that the court should have conducted a trial to resolve the disputed issues of fact *(see Town of Mentz v Crandall,*288 AD2d 841 [2001]; *see generally Town of Clarkstown v M.R.O. Pump & Tank, Inc.,*32 AD3d 925 [2006]; *Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow v Owen,*247 AD2d 585 [1998]; *Martino v Town of Bergen,*98 AD2d 968 [1983], *lv denied*61 NY2d 606 [1984]). Present—Centra, J.P., Lunn, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Wallason, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 9, 1975, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and possession of a weapon, etc., as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No contentions have been raised with respect to the findings of fact. The prosecutor’s repeated characterization of the defendant as a "liar” and his incitement of the jury’s fear of crime were improper and denied defendant a fair trial (see *People v Shanis,*36 NY2d 697; *People v Rogers,*59 AD2d 916, 918). This impropriety was further compounded by the court’s error, though harmless in and of itself, in failing to charge the jury with regard to motive (see *People v Sangamino,*258 NY 85, 88). Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE SMITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PEPSI AMERICAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-02742-SI (SI)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON 

SETTLEMENT

The parties to the action, by their counsel, have advised the court that they have agreed to 

a settlement. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

However, that if any party hereto certifies to this court, with proof of service of a copy thereon on 

opposing counsel, within ninety days from the date hereof, that settlement has not in fact occurred, 

the foregoing order shall be vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar for 

further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/11/16

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 318 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 1
§ 4.2 Procedure. Notification and subsequent changes are made as follows: ( a ) Diplomatic and career consular officers and their dependents: Form DSP-110, *Notification of Appointment of Foreign Diplomatic Officer and Career Consular Officer*;
( b ) All other foreign government employees who are serving at diplomatic missions, consular posts, or miscellaneous foreign government offices and their dependents: Form DSP-111, *Notification of Appointment of Foreign Government Employee.*
( c ) Honorary consular officers: Form DSP-112, *Notification of Appointment of Honorary Consular Officer.*
( d ) Missions should use Form DSP-113, *Notification of Change—Identification Card Request,* to promptly inform the Department of State of any change in the status of officers or employees of the missions and their family members originally reported to Protocol, or to apply for an identification card.
( e ) Upon termination of employment of any diplomatic or consular officer, honorary consular officer, embassy or consular employee, or miscellaneous foreign government staff member, a Form DSP-115, *Notice of Termination of Diplomatic, Consular, or Foreign Government Employment,* must be submitted to the Office of Protocol.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

April 18, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00118

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.T., X.T.,L.T ., Children,

From the 285th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- PA

- 02021 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Pre siding



### O R D E R

Appellant Mom’s brief was due to be filed with this court on April 13, 2022. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 38.6(a). On the due date, Mom filed a motion for extension of time to file her brief. Mom filed her brief on April 18, 2022. It is accepted as timely. Appellee’s brief is now due on May 9, 2022.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of April, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WOODIE LEO WILLIAMS, J r

. ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CHARLES L. RYAN, et al

. ,

Defendant s

- Appellee s. No. 20

- 17274

D.C. No

. 2:19

- cv

- 04456

- JAT

- MTM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21 , 20 21 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT , Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Woodie Leo Williams , Jr. appeals pro se from the

district cou rt’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs

. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

, Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 30 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 17274

Cir. 2004) , and w e affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Nicole

Schaffer was deliberately indifferent to the wound on his leg. See id. at 1057

- 60 (a

prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere

difference in medical opinion are insufficient); Hallett v. Morgan , 296 F.3d 732,

745

- 46 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay in medical treatment does not constitute deliberate

indifference unless the delay led to significant injury)

.

We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that defendant ’ s answering

brief was untimely.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Hyman Kahan, Appellant, v. Robert C. Weaver, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

In a proceeding by a landlord, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator that a housing accommodation is not self-contained *642and, therefore, is not subject to decontrol within the purview of subdivision 12 of section 9 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations, the landlord appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 24, 1959, which denies his petition and dismisses the proceeding. This proceeding involves a one-story frame bungalow which is one of two bungalows in the rear of two buildings facing West 22nd Street in Coney Island. It appears from the record that the four buildings are on one lot, that they are taxed as a single unit and that they always have been transferred as a single unit. The State Rent Administrator’s determination denying decontrol of the accommodation was based on the evidence in its records and on an inspection report which stated, *inter alia,*that hot water was piped into the subject accommodation from another unit. This statement was denied by the landlord. By a prior order, dated November 13, 1957, the Justice at Special Term sustained the determination and denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The landlord appealed, and this court, on May 18, 1959, reversed the said order and remitted the proceeding to the Special Term for a statement showing the basis of its conclusion that the Administrator’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious, and showing particularly the facts disclosed by the Justice’s personal inspection of the premises, made on the consent of the parties *(Matter of Kahan*v. *Weaver,*8 A D 2d 738). On remission, the Justice at Special Term made another personal inspection of the premises, and, after a hearing, adhered to his former decision on the basis of the following findings, among others, which he made: (1) that all of the electric meters for the seven units in the four buildings were located in one of the front buildings; (2) that there is a common passageway or alleyway for access to the rear buildings which is located at the side of one of the front buildings; and (3) that water, although heated in the subject accommodation, is piped into it from one water line containing one valve located in the street, in front of one of the front buildings. Order affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the facts and circumstances warrant the finding that the subject housing accommodation constitutes part of a multiple dwelling, and justify the conclusion that the Administrator’s determination in denying decontrol was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
### §3797u–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797u–2 was editorially reclassified as section 10613 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
**Exhibit 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Andrew L. Schroeder, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofMarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures****andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)             All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 12, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Andrew  L. Schroeder                |
|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Andrew L. Schroeder                     |
|                     |   | Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary |

 

1

----
### §300cc–40a. Microbicide research

#### (a) Federal strategic plan

The Director of the Office shall—

(1) expedite the implementation of the Federal strategic plans required by section 283(a) of this title regarding the conduct and support of research on, and development of, a microbicide to prevent the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus; and

(2) review and, as appropriate, revise such plan to prioritize funding and activities relative to their scientific urgency and potential market readiness.

#### (b) Coordination

In implementing, reviewing, and prioritizing elements of the plan described in subsection (a), the Director of the Office shall consult, as appropriate, with—

(1) representatives of other Federal agencies involved in microbicide research, including the Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development;

(2) the microbicide research and development community; and

(3) health advocates.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXIII, §2351A, as added Pub. L. 110–293, title II, §203(b), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2940.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 300cc–40a, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXIII, §2352, as added Pub. L. 103–43, title XVIII, §1801(a)(3), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 193, which required the establishment of an advisory council and coordinating committees, was transferred to section 300cc–40b of this title.

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

#### Sense of Congress

Pub. L. 110–293, title II, §203(a), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2940, provided that: "Congress recognizes the need and urgency to expand the range of interventions for preventing the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), including nonvaccine prevention methods that can be controlled by women."
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2490 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Mayor Joseph S. Daddona Memorial 

Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 2490 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsyl4 vania, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mayor Jo5 seph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

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

10 to the ‘‘Mayor Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
SPA RENTAL, LLC, d/b/a/ MSI AVIATION, Complainant, 

### v. SOMERSET

- PULASKI COUNTY AIRPORT BOARD, Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-13-02

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance withFAA Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to July 31, 2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case. 

# Ed

~~n ! ¥2
Associate Administrator

for Airports 

# 4~ IJIJ, 

## 2.(J/, Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8, 2016 I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage pa id) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime to July 31 , 2016 for FAA Docket No. 16

- 13-02 addressed to: Counsel for Complainant: Konrad Kuczak 130 West Second Street, Suite 1010 Dayton, OH 45402
Counsel for Respondent: Rachel Owsley Bethany A. Breetz Stites & Harbison, PLLC 400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202
Hand delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 

# l ' ~ 

# b
Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
**Exhibit 15**

May 10, 2006

Securities andExchange Commission100 F Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20549

We are aware that MonsterWorldwide, Inc. has incorporated by reference in its previously filed openRegistration Statements on Form S-3 and S-8 (Nos. 333-81843,333-63631, 333-50699, 333-18937, 333-63499, 333-88193,333-75031, 333-93065, 333-70795, 333-83131, 333-96101,333-61400, 333-71062, 333-109598, 333-115007, 333-116004,333-124134 and 333-131899) its Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2006, which includes our report dated April 26, 2006covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuantto Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), that report is notconsidered part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firmor a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7and 11 of the Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any proceduressubsequent to April 26, 2006.

BDO Seidman, LLPNew York, New York

----