alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 217
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 217 appear at 68 FR 51362, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 217.43 Treatment of students; general. ( a ) No qualified handicapped student shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any academic, research, occupational training, housing, health, insurance, counseling, financial aid, physical education, athletics, recreation, transportation, other extracurricular, or other postsecondary education aid, benefits, or services to which this subpart applies.
( b ) A recipient to which this subpart applies that considers participation by students in education programs or activities not operated wholly by the recipient as part of, or equivalent to, an education program or activity operated by the recipient shall assure itself that the other education program or activity, as a whole, provides an equal opportunity for the participation of qualified handicapped persons.
( c ) A recipient to which this subpart applies may not, on the basis of handicap, exclude any qualified handicapped student from any course, course of study, or other part of its education program or activity.
( d ) A recipient to which this subpart applies shall operate its program or activity in the most integrated setting appropriate.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27797]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04-3808; MM Docket No. 01-120; RM-10126]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Lincoln and Sherman, IL

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a Petition for Reconsideration filed by 
Long Nine, Inc. directed to the Report and Order in this proceeding. 
See 67 FR 16652, April 8, 2002. With this action, the proceeding is 
terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau, (202) 418-
2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion 
and Order in MM Docket No. 01-120 adopted December 1, 2004, and 
released December 3, 2004. The full text of this decision is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center at Portals ll, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The 
Commission will not send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), 
because the aforementioned petition for reconsideration was denied.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-27797 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 4, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130310 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. JAMES D. AZZAR, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices and

PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, LIMITED, Plaintiff,

v SC: 130310 COA: 260438 Kent CC: 03-011760-NZ CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, Defendant-Appellee,

and

BERNARD C. SCHAEFER, and ROBERT J. KRUIS, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 22, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue whether the Grand Rapids Building Mainte nance Code is preempted by the Stille

DeRossett-Hale single state constr uction code act, MCL 125.1501, et seq. , as amended by Pub Acts 1999, No. 245.

The Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Towns hips Association, the Michigan Association of Coun ties, and the Public Corpora tion Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae.

s0427 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 4, 2006

Clerk
#### Joyce SHARPLEY, Wife of Decedent, As Administrator of the Estate of Decedent, James Edward Sharpley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John RALEY, State Conservation Officer/Game Warden for the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, in his individual capacity, Defendant, Tim Cosby, Chief of Enforcement for the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, in his individual capacity Johnny Johnson, Conservation Captain for the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-15045.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 22, 2007.

Jarrod D. Nichols, Taylor & Taylor, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William A. Gunter, IV, Ala. Dept, of Conservation & Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and FORRESTER,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After review and oral argument, the Court finds no reversible error in the district court’s order dated February 1, 2005 and affirms the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants Tim Cosby and Johnny Johnson on the plaintiffs claims.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations in the
Company's Form 10-QSB as of and for the year to date and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    APR-30-2000
<CASH>                              229,133
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        29,322
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                          56,017
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    348,526
<PP&E>                              699,726
<DEPRECIATION>                       52,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,114,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               389,578
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                             16,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                          486,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,114,429
<SALES>                             146,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    146,855
<CGS>                               109,197
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       384,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      1,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   16,823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (365,094)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (365,094)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      26,134
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (338,960)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.02)


</TABLE>
§ 235.5 Non-impairment of the Guarantee. After issuance of the Guarantee, the Guarantee will be an unconditional, full faith and credit obligation of the United States of America and will not be affected or impaired by any subsequent condition or event. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative 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. In particular and without limitation, the Guarantee shall not be affected or impaired by: ( a ) Any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, USAID, the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee or
( b ) The suspension or termination of the program pursuant to which USAID is authorized to guarantee the Eligible Notes.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2468 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2468

        To suspend temporarily the duty on noils of camel hair.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2005

 Mr. Simmons introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on noils of camel hair.

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

SECTION 1. NOILS OF CAMEL HAIR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.42.02       Noils of camel     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         hair (provided                                                     31/2008
                         for in subheading
                         5103.10.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RALPH E. SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 312 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RALPH E. SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 313 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RALPH EUGENE SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 314 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court[ 312 MAL 2019, 313 MAL 2019 and 314 MAL 2019 ]

- 2 ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of October, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Editorial Note on Part 66
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 66 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

§ 66.3 Places at which forms and instructions for use by the public may be obtained. ( a ) All forms and instructions pertaining to procedures under FOIA may be obtained from the FOIA officer of the National Endowment for Democracy, 1101 15th St., NW; Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005-5000.
( b ) Grant guidelines may be obtained from the Program Office of NED to the address shown in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) General information may be obtained from the Public Affairs Office of NED at the address shown in paragraph (a) of this section.
[51 FR 40162, Nov. 5, 1986. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999]
§ 242.1 Authority. ( a ) Under section 3 of the HAVANA Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-46), codified in 22 U.S.C. 2680b(i), the Secretary of State or other agency heads may provide a payment for a qualifying injury to the brain to a covered employee or covered dependent, who incurred a qualifying injury to the brain on or after January 1, 2016. The authority to provide such payments is at the sole discretion of the USAID Administrator or their designee.
( b ) These regulations are issued in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 2680b(i)(4) and apply to former covered employees of the United States Agency for International Development and their covered dependents.
#### BLACKLEDGE, Respondent, v. PHŒNIX INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by Katharine D. Blackledge against the Phoenix Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Joseph Weber et al., Appellants, v Alan Scheer, Respondent.

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 9, 1976 and November 24, 1976, respectively, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This medical malpractice action was brought approximately 9 years after the last treatment and is therefore time-barred under CPLR 214; and plaintiff has not successfully demonstrated that his matter falls within the ambit of cases which extend or toll the Statute of Limitations. Plaintiff claims that a prosthetic device was placed in his ear without his knowledge or consent and that defendant failed to remove it after he found that it no longer served a useful purpose. He places reliance upon *Flanagan v Mt. Eden Gen. Hosp.,*(24 NY2d 427) which held that a surgical tool negligently left in a patient’s body tolls the statute until discovery. Here the device was meant to be left in the patient, and there is no claim that it was defective when inserted or was inserted improperly. In *Murphy v St. Charles Hosp.*(35 AD2d 64), it was held that a "Moore Prosthesis” which was inserted in the patient’s hip and which was later found to be defective was a "foreign object” for the purpose of tolling the statute. Distinctions exist between *Murphy (supra), and the case at*bar. The pin in Murphy was defective, here there is no such showing or allegation. In both *Flanagan*and *Murphy*the injuries were the obvious result of the malpractice claimed, and there was no such break in the chain of causal relation as exists here. In considering the time frame and the many causes of meningitis, there would have been numerous possible breaks in any alleged chain of causation. Incidentally, the Legislature amended CPLR 214-a to provide that a "foreign object” (which if left in the patient would toll the statute) should not include prosthetic devices. Though the amendment does not apply here, the implied legislative intent is of significance to the court, and is declaratory of and confirms existing case law. Accordingly, Special Term was justified in finding the action time-barred. Concur—Lupiano, J.P., Silverman, Evans and Markewich, JJ.
# 60th Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, 2004

Sixty years ago, more than 600,000 American soldiers fought at the Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes Forest region of Belgium and Luxembourg. What began as a German surprise attack on December 16, 1944, became the largest land battle involving U.S. troops in World War II and ended with an Allied victory on January 25, 1945. By the end of the battle, there were 81,000 American casualties, including approximately 19,000 who had sacrificed their lives. This formidable stand was a turning point in the war and was critical to the defeat of Nazi Germany and the liberation of Europe from tyranny.

Americans continue to be inspired by the valor and integrity of those who fought and those who died at the Battle of the Bulge. We recognize these brave individuals and pay special tribute to all the veterans of World War II. When it mattered most, an entire generation of Americans showed the finest qualities of our Nation and humanity. Today, as we wage a war on terrorism and defend freedom, our service men and women follow and uphold this great tradition of achievement and courage. Just like their parents and grandparents, the men and women of this generation of our military have answered the call to help advance peace and democracy and keep the American people safe.

On the 60th anniversary of one of the fiercest battles of World War II, our Nation honors the veterans who share with us the story of this epic struggle and all of the brave Americans who fought in the Battle of the Bulge.

                        NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby urge all Americans to observe the 60th Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. I call upon all Americans to observe this occasion with appropriate activities, ceremonies, and programs designed to honor those who served and sacrificed to liberate Europe and defend America's freedom and security.                              ( print page 76372)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

[FR Doc. 04–27944

Billing code 3195–01–P
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

SEAN SLIDER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04847 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.

Dated: SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04847-SI Document 82 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75293-75294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27581]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 53-2004]


Foreign-Trade Zone 7--Mayaguez, PR, Application for Subzone, 
Ortho Biologics, LLC (Pharmaceutical Intermediates), Manat[iacute], PR; 
Correction

    The Federal Register notice (69 FR 70121-70122, 12/02/2004) 
describing the application by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development 
Company (PRIDCO), grantee of FTZ 7, requesting special-purpose subzone 
status for the pharmaceutical intermediate manufacturing facility of 
Ortho Biologics, LLC (OBI) in Manat[iacute], Puerto Rico, is corrected 
as follows:

[[Page 75294]]

    Paragraph 6 should read ``A copy of the application and 
accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the 
Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at 
address Number 1 listed above, and at the U.S. Department of Commerce 
Export Assistance Center, Midtown Bldg., 10th Floor, 420 Ponce de Leon 
Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-3416.''

    Dated: December 9, 2004.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-27581 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
### §§4301 to 4312. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 4301 to 4312 of this title, Pub. L. 91–181, §§1–12, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 838, were omitted pursuant to section 4312 of this title which provided that Pub. L. 91–181 shall expire five years after Dec. 30, 1969.

Section 4301, Pub. L. 91–181, §1, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 838, related to Congressional declaration of purpose.

Section 4302, Pub. L. 91–181, §2, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 838, related to establishment of Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking People, its composition, appointment of Chairman.

Section 4303, Pub. L. 91–181, §3, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 838, related to functions of Committee.

Section 4304, Pub. L. 91–181, §4, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 839, related to administrative powers of the Committee.

Section 4305, Pub. L. 91–181, §5, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 839, related to utilization of services and facilities of governmental agencies.

Section 4306, Pub. L. 91–181, §6, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 839, related to compensation of personnel and transfer of personnel from other Federal departments and agencies.

Section 4307, Pub. L. 91–181, §7, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 839, related to establishment of an Advisory Council on Spanish-Speaking Americans.

Section 4308, Pub. L. 91–181, §8, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 840, related to nonimpairment of existing powers of other Federal departments and agencies.

Section 4309, Pub. L. 91–181, §9, Dec. 30, 1969, 93 Stat. 840, related to restrictions on political activities of Committee and Advisory Council.

Section 4310, Pub. L. 91–181, §10, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 840; Pub. L. 92–122, Aug. 16, 1971, 85 Stat. 342, related to authorization of appropriations.

Section 4311, Pub. L. 91–181, §11, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 840, related to submission of reports to the President and Congress.

Section 4312, Pub. L. 91–181, §12, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 840, provided that this chapter shall expire five years after Dec. 30, 1969.
#### In the Matter of Stephen W. Krysty, Jr., Appellant, v State University of New York at Buffalo, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 846]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Gerald J. Whalen, J.), entered July 12, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, reinstatement in respondent’s doctoral degree program. We reject the contention of petitioner that respondent violated his right to due process by failing to respond to his initial grievance within 30 days following its submission, pursuant to respondent’s grievance resolution process. We conclude that respondent “substantially adhered to the time frame” of its grievance resolution process by responding to the grievance within 37 days of its submission *(Matter of Nawaz v State Univ. of N.Y. Univ. at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine,*295 AD2d 944, 945 [2002]; *see also Tedeschi v Wagner Coll.,*49 NY2d 652, 660 [1980]). Petitioner did not include his remaining contentions in his petition and thus failed to preserve them for our review *(see Matter of Ferraro v State of NY. Racing & Wagering Bd., Div. of Thoroughbred,*284 AD2d 949, 950 [2001]; *Matter of Tower v McCall,*257 AD2d 973, 974 [1999]; *Matter of Mobley v Scully,*137 AD2d 604 [1988]). In any event, the record establishes that respondent otherwise substantially adhered to its grievance procedures and that its determination is neither arbitrary nor capricious *(cf. Matter of Gruen v Chase,*215 AD2d 481, 481-482 [1995]; *see generally Nawaz,*295 AD2d at 944-945; *Matter of Al-Khadra v Syracuse Univ.,*291 AD2d 865, 866, *lv denied*98 NY2d 603 [2002]; *Matter of Mary M. v Clark,*100 AD2d 41, 45 [1984]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Centra, JJ.