alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 521.13 Parties to the hearing. ( a ) The parties to the hearing shall be the defendant and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
( b ) Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5), a private plaintiff under the False Claims Act may participate in these proceedings to the extent authorized by the provisions of that Act.
### §3507. Transfer of personnel and household goods; delegation of Secretary's authority

The Secretary of Health and Human Services may on and after July 12, 1943, delegate to such officers and employees as he may designate for the purpose all his authority in connection with the transfer of personnel and household goods and effects from one official station to another.

(July 12, 1943, ch. 221, title II, 57 Stat. 513; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. I, §5, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 623e of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

Section is from the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act, 1944.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

July 2, 1942, ch. 475, title II, 56 Stat. 587.

Apr. 28, 1942, ch. 247, title III, 56 Stat. 235.

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Federal Security Administrator transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and all agencies of Federal Security Agency transferred to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 5 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953 set out as a note under section 202 of this title. Federal Security Agency and office of Administrator abolished by section 8 of said Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953.
§ 1427.5 Standards governing issuance of general statements of policy or guidance. In deciding whether to issue a general statement of policy or guidance, the Board shall consider: ( a ) Whether the question presented can more appropriately be resolved by other means;
( b ) Where other means are available, whether a Board statement would prevent the proliferation of cases involving the same or similar question;
( c ) Whether the resolution of the question presented would have general applicability under the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
( d ) Whether the question currently confronts parties in the context of a labor-management relationship;
( e ) Whether the question is presented jointly by the parties involved; and
( f ) Whether the issuance by the Board of a general statement of policy or guidance on the question would promote constructive and cooperative labor-management relationships in the Foreign Service and would otherwise promote the purposes of the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27761]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Pub. L. 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 9, 2004, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit 
application received. The permit was issued on December 14, 2004 to: 
Rennie S. Holt; Permit No. 2005-013.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-27761 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### § 3.12 Exemption of grants and other foreign government assistance in cultural exchange programs from coverage of foreign gifts and decorations legislation.

The Act specifically excludes from its application grants and other forms of assistance “to which section 108A of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 applies”. See 22 U.S.C. 2558 (a) and (b) for the terms and conditions under which Congress consents to the acceptance by a Federal employee of grants and other forms of assistance provided by a foreign government to facilitate the participation of such employee in a cultural exchange.
§ 507.5 Procedures for announcing meetings. ( a ) In the case of each meeting, the Board shall make public, at least one week before the meeting, the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting, whether it is to be open or closed to the public, and the name and phone number of the official designated by the Board to respond to requests for information about the meeting. Such announcement shall be made unless a majority of the members of the Board determine by a recorded vote that such meeting must be called at an earlier date, in which case the Board shall make public announcement of the time, place, subject matter of such meeting and whether it is open or closed to the public, at the earliest practical time.
( b ) Immediately following the public announcement, the Board will publish it in the Federal Register.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John McCormack, Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 190]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J. — Criminal Mischief, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Kehoe, JJ.
#### Robert Henry, Respondent, v Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, Also Known as Long Island Savings Agency, *352Inc., Doing Business as Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, et al., Appellants.

[716 NYS2d 597]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, a/k/a Long Island Savings Agency, Inc., d/b/a Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, and Garden City Company, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated August 26, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Long Island Savings Bank.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Garden City Company, Inc., is dismissed, as that defendant is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, a/k/a Long Island Savings Agency, Inc., d/b/a Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, is granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, a/k/a Long Island Savings Agency, Inc., d/b/a Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, is awarded one bill of costs payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was injured when he allegedly slipped and fell on wet leaves at premises occupied by the defendant Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, a/k/a Long Island Savings Agency, Inc., d/b/a Long Island Savings Bank, FSB (hereinafter the Bank). The Bank made a prima facie showing that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the leaves upon which he allegedly slipped were visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, the Bank’s employees were or should have been aware of them and taken remedial action *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836; *Capone v Schaible,*211 AD2d 661). Similarly, the engineer’s affidavit proffered by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see, Santo v Astor Ct. Owners Corp.,*248 AD2d 267).

The plaintiff’s contention thát a sanction should be imposed for the spoliation of evidence is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Daniel Driesman, an Attorney and Counselor at Law, Admitted under the Name Daniel L. Driesman, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Motion by petitioner (1) to vacate this court’s order dated February 22, 1977 which authorized the institution of a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent and (2) to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law on the ground that respondent has been disbarred by virtue of a felony conviction. Motion granted. The order of this court dated February 22, 1977 is recalled and vacated. On the court’s own motion, its order of June 7,1977 is recalled and vacated. The respondent, admitted to practice before the Bar by this court on March 30, 1960 under the name Daniel L. Driesman, was convicted of a felony (violation of US Code, tit 26, § 7206, subd [2]) unlawfully, willfully and knowingly aiding, assisting in, procuring, counseling and advising the preparation and presentation under the Internal Revenue Law, of a return, which was fraudulent and false, in the United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York on April 13, 1976. The clerk of this court is directed to strike his name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law forthwith by reason of said conviction *(Matter of Chu,*42 NY2d 490). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
#### Alexander Lips and Benjamin F. Nysewander, Jr., by J. L. Nysewander, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Anton J. Cermak and Anna L. McCoid, Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 20,236.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John K. Pbindivilee, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 8, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Proceeding for trial of right of property in an automobile by Alexander Lips and Benjamin F. Nysewander, Jr., the latter suing by J. L. Nysewander, his next friend, against Anton J., Cermak and Anna L. McCoid. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs bring error.

The machine was taken by defendant Cermak as bailiff, under an execution on a judgment in favor of defendant, Anna L. McCoid, against Benjamin Nysewander, Sr. The evidence tended to show that Nysewander, Sr., the judgment debtor, had no interest in the machine. Benjamin Nysewander, Jr., had traded real estate belonging to plaintiff Lips for the machine and was still in possession when it was levied upon under the execution.

The only evidence offered for the defendants was the files in a suit in replevin in the Municipal Court to recover possession of the automobile, in which Lips was plaintiff and Cermak and McCoid defendants and the following entry:

“July 2/13. Booney. Tr. by Ct. Fndg. right prop, in repn. not in plff. Judg. for Lefts in repn. reto hab *&*C. Bd. $1500.”

Harry H. Felgar, for plaintiffs in error.

*547Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § *19*
      ***
      *—-ineffectiveness of abbreviated judgment.*In a proceeding for trial of right of property taken under an execution, an abbreviated record of a judgment in the Municipal Court in replevin between the same defendants and one of the plaintiffs, *held*not to constitute any evidence of a judgment in the replevin, action.

2. Judgment, § *539*—where adjudication in replevin not conclusive of trial of right of property.*In a proceeding for trial of right of property, a judgment in a prior replevin suit between the same defendants and one of the two plaintiffs in the second action, *held*not to constitute a bar to the proceeding between the same defendants and the plaintiff for trial of right of the same property taken under an execution.

Parker & King and John Stelk, for defendants in error; Otto C. Rentner, of counsel.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andy R. Eberhardt, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 349]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495) and the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We note, however, that the order of revocation issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles improperly revokes defendant’s license for a minimum of one year, rather than a minimum of six months *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [2] [b] [1-a]) and the order must therefore be amended *(see generally, People v Nunez, 267*AD2d 1050, 1051, *lv denied*94 NY2d 905). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Noonan, J.— Aggravated Unlicensed Operation Motor Vehicle, 1st Degree.) *1045Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.2


                                CFO CERTIFICATION

I, R. Greg Smith, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB/A of ERF Wireless, Inc.;


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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated 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 small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.


Date: October 14, 2005


By:  /s/ R. Greg Smith
     -----------------
     R. Greg Smith
     Chief Financial Officer
     (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ABBYY SOFTWARE HOUSE et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-2912 JSW (MEJ)

DISCOVERY ORDER RE MAY 24,

2010 JOINT LETTER [Dkt. #198]

Before the Court is the joint discovery dispute letter filed by the parties on May 24, 2010. 

(Dkt. #198.) The undersigned will withhold ruling on this dispute until Judge White acts on the June

14, 2010 Recommendation of the Special Master. (Dkt. #205.) The parties shall contact Brenda

Tolbert, Courtroom Deputy, at (415) 522-4708 and request that she alert the undersigned that Judge

White has issued his decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-02912-JSW Document 206 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 1
From: Rahul Pendse <RPendse@trinityconsultants.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:25 PM

To: Land, Eva

Cc: Carlson, Sara

Subject: Anadarko BlackHawk EGOM PSD/Title V permit application - Revised 

Sections

Attachments: Revised BlackHawk Appendix B Revision 1.pdf; Revised BlackHornet 

Appendix D Pages Revision 1.pdf; Revised - BlackHawk PSD and Title V 

Permit Application Revision 1.pdf

Hello Eva,

Per our phone discussion, attached are revised sections for BlackHawk EGOM PSD/Title V permit 

application received by EPA on September 5, 2013. I have highlighted the key revisions. The key 

revisions include:

1. Drillship main engines long term NOx PTE (note no impact short term PTE [i.e., lbs/hr and 

lbs/day])

2. Support vessel fuel based emission factor 

3. Added more clarification to fuel based emission factor derivation (see pages 187 to 192 in 

Revised Appendix B)

To ensure consistency, I have made a few other administrative changes in the attached documents. 

Please note that none of these revisions have impact on submitted air dispersion modeling analysis. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification. I will provide a similar email for 

BlackHornet PSD/Title V permit application. 

Thanks for your help!

................................................................................................................

Rahul Pendse

Managing Consultant

Trinity Consultants – Baton Rouge

301 Main Street, Suite 900 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

Office: 225-346-4003 | Mobile: 714-454-0518

Email: rpendse@trinityconsultants.com

_________________________________________________________________________

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to

which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged

material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or

taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or

entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you

Received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material 

from any computer.

_________________________________________________________________________
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lowell N. Boykin, Relator, v. Warden of the Brooklyn House of Detention for Men, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, after a hearing, the writ is dismissed and relator is remanded to the custody of the respondent. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn, Appellant, v. Romundy, Inc., et al., Defendants, and George I. Newblatt, Respondent; Kenneth Molloy, as Referee.

Motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals referred to the court that rendered the decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur. Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan,. JJ., concur.
Open Literature Review Screen Chemical Name: Atrazine CAS No: 1912-24-9 Citation: Guasch, H., W. Admiraal, et a1. (2003). "Contrasting effects oforganic and inorganic toxicants on freshwater periphyton." Aquatic Toxicology 64(2): 165-175. (WltZll,)**4~7..blli'2,)** Date ofScreen: 08/24/09 Rationale for Not Conducting a Full Open Literature Review Summary: The study reported ranges for the a.i. concentrations employed in the study; therefore, the a.i. exposure concentrations were not defined. Primary Reviewer: LisaMuto, StaffScientist, Cambridge Environmental Inc. Secondary Reviewer: Teri Myers, Senior Scientist, Cambridge Environmental Inc.



# 111111••11 2087851
#### Bernard H. Glatzer, Appellant, v Enron Corp. et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 307]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 20, 1999, which, *inter alia,*granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that the United States District Court order of June 10, 1998 collaterally estops plaintiff from asserting that the idea he claims that defendants misappropriated was novel, and precludes all of plaintiff’s causes of action herein. The stipulated withdrawal of plaintiff’s appeal to the Second Circuit left the District Court’s order intact. There is no merit to plaintiffs argument that his attorney’s alleged ineptitude deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the motion underlying the Federal court order. On the contrary, the record indicates that the attorney vigorously litigated plaintiffs claims. In view of the foregoing, plaintiffs remaining points are moot. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.