alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 94.8 Interagency coordinating group.

The U.S. Central Authority shall nominate federal employees and may, from time to time, nominate private citizens to serve on an interagency coordinating group to monitor the operation of the Convention and to provide advice on its implementation. This group shall meet from time to time at the request of the U.S. Central Authority.
#### James A. Buckley, Appellant, v. 2570 Broadway Corp., Respondent-Appellant, and Central Petroleum Corp. et al., Respondents.

Judgment, entered on December 15, 1959, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits and dismissing the cross complaints of defendants 2570 Broadway Corp. and the City of New York against defendant Central Petroleum Corp., unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Plaintiff’s claim of negligence is that he was caused to fall because of a hole in the sidewalk and a greasy condition on or about an oil intake valve in front of the premises of defendant 2570 Broadway Corp. We hold the court erroneously failed to charge in response to the inquiry of the jury that liability may be grounded on the bases alleged and established by the evidence if they substantially and proximately caused the occurrence although concurrently and to a lesser extent caused by the presence of snow. In addition, we conclude the plaintiff did not have a fair trial. During the progress of the trial there were interruptions and unnecessary criticisms of plaintiff’s counsel to such an extent that in our opinion the calm, dispassionate and deliberate consideration of the facts by the jury was unduly impeded. We are mindful of the fact that a Trial Judge is not reduced to such constraint that he may not make remarks on occurrences during the trial. *(Devlin*v. *New York City Ry. Co.,*116 App. Div. 894.) The Trial Judge should, however, at all times maintain an impartial attitude and exercise a high degree of patience and forbearance. The development of the facts in the presence of a jury so far as is humanly possible should be uncomplicated by personalities and acrimony. *(Kamen Soap Prods. Co.*v. *Prusansky & Prusansky,*11 A D 2d 676; *Cohon & Co.*v. *Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corp.,*10 A D 2d 667; *Bowen*v. *Mahoney Coal Corp.,*256 App. Div. 485; *People*v. *Di Carlo,*242 App. Div. 328.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AON RE INC/AON GLOBAL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. CV-09-0082 MMC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues

have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED defendants’ motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. To the extent the motion seeks summary judgment on the First, Second, Third, Fourth,

and Fifth Causes of Action, the motion is hereby GRANTED.

2. To the extent the motion seeks summary judgment on the Sixth Cause of Action, the

motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice, and the Sixth Cause of Action, is hereby

REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San Francisco.

Dated: April 14, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-00082-MMC Document 61 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS ROBERT COLLIER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-4704 CRB (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket # 9)

On February 25, 2010, the court denied petitioner's application for a writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of

Parole Hearings' (BPH) August 6, 2007 decision to deny him parole.

On March 19, 2010, petitioner submitted a letter to the Ninth Circuit

which the court of appeals forwarded to this court. On April 7, 2010, this court

construed the letter as a request for an extension of time to appeal and granted

petitioner 14 days from April 7, 2010 to file a notice of appeal.

Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal and request for a certificate of

appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22(b). See Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, slip op. at 16 (9th Cir.

Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc) (COA required regardless of whether state decision to

deny release from confinement is administrative or judicial).

Case 3:08-cv-04704-CRB Document 10 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

 Petitioner’s request for a COA (docket # 9) is DENIED because petitioner

has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner has not demonstrated that "reasonable jurists

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable

or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

The clerk shall forward to the court of appeals the case file with this order. 

See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.08\Collier, D1.coa.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-04704-CRB Document 10 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2
#### BOYD v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 8, 1905.)

Action by James E. Boyd, as committee, etc., against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
#### § 96.1 Purpose.

This part provides for the accreditation and approval of agencies and persons pursuant to the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14901-14954, Pub. L. 106-279,) and the Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 14925, Pub. L. 112-276). Subpart B of this part establishes the procedures for the selection and designation of accrediting entities to perform the accreditation and approval functions. Subparts C through H establish the general procedures and standards for accreditation and approval of agencies and persons (including renewal of accreditation or approval). Subparts I through M address the oversight of accredited or approved agencies and persons.

[79 FR 40632, July 14, 2014]
#### Mary S. Stout, as Executrix of Clyde A. Dickerson, Deceased, Respondent, v. Helma V. Johnson, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, with $25 costs and disbursements and motion for summary judgment denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: There are issues of fact in this ease that prevent the disposition of the ease by summary judgment. A trial is required. (Appeal from order of Erie County Court striking out defendant’s answer and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28259]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC)

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: PITAC's Subcommittee on Computational Science will provide an 
update of its activities. PITAC will discuss the Subcommittee's 
presentation and provide feedback for use in guiding the Subcommittee's 
work. There will be an update on the dissemination of PITAC's report 
Revolutionizing Health Care Through Information Technology. The latter 
portion of the meeting focuses on a presentation and deliberation on 
PITAC's draft report on cyber security. Public input will be solicited 
during a public comment period. A small fraction of the meeting time 
may be allocated for other PITAC updates at the discretion of the co-
chairs and the designated Federal officer.

DATES: Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. eastern time.

ADDRESSES: National Science Foundation, Stafford I, Room 1235, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will also be held via a 
teleconference and the Internet through the WebEx application. 
Information about registration for in-person or remote participation 
will be posted at PITAC's Web site (http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac) by 
December 23. Meeting information may also be obtained by calling 703-
292-4873. The agenda for the meeting will be posted at PITAC's Web site 
when it becomes available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Alan Inouye at the National 
Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development 
at 703-292-4873 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#61080f0e141804210f081513054f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f7671706a667a5f71766b6d7b31787069">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 21, 2004.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-28259 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 401.27 Notice and publication. ( a ) The secretary to whom a reference is presented shall receive and file the same and shall send a copy forthwith to the other secretary for filing in the office of the latter. If the reference is presented by one Government only, the other secretary shall send a copy forthwith to his Government.
( b ) Subject to any restrictions or exceptions which may be imposed upon the Commission by the terms of the reference, and unless otherwise provided by the Commission, the secretaries, as soon as practicable after the reference is received, shall cause a notice to be published in the Canada Gazette, the Federal Register and in two newspapers, published one in each country and circulated in or near the localities which, in the opinion of the Commission, are most likely to be interested in the subject matter of the reference. The notice shall describe the subject matter of reference in general terms invite interested persons to inform the Commission of the nature of their interest and state that the Commission will provide convenient opportunity for interested persons to be heard with respect thereto.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn assessment of advanced technology for industrial cogenerationThe potential of advanced fuel utilization and energy conversion technologies to enhance the outlook for the increased use of industrial cogeneration was assessed. The attributes of advanced cogeneration systems that served as the basis for the assessment included their fuel flexibility and potential for low emissions, efficiency of fuel or energy utilization, capital equipment and operating costs, and state of technological development. Over thirty advanced cogeneration systems were evaluated. These cogeneration system options were based on Rankine cycle, gas turbine engine, reciprocating engine, Stirling engine, and fuel cell energy conversion systems. The alternatives for fuel utilization included atmospheric and pressurized fluidized bed combustors, gasifiers, conventional combustion systems, alternative energy sources, and waste heat recovery. Two advanced cogeneration systems with mid-term (3 to 5 year) potential were found to offer low emissions, multi-fuel capability, and a low cost of producing electricity. Both advanced cogeneration systems are based on conventional gas turbine engine/exhaust heat recovery technology; however, they incorporate advanced fuel utilization systems.Document ID19840013933Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMoore, N.*(Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1983Subject CategoryEnergy Production And ConversionReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:173456NASA-CR-173456JPL-PUB-83-66Accession Number84N22001Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS7-918CONTRACT_GRANT: NASA ORDER C-2742911PROJECT: RTOP 779-00-00Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840013933.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 513.205 Ineligible persons.

Persons who are ineligible, as defined in § 513.105(i), are excluded in accordance with the applicable statutory, executive order, or regulatory authority.
§ 115.305 Special enforcement effort (SEE) funds. ( a ) SEE funds are funds that HUD may provide to an agency to enhance enforcement activities of the agency's fair housing law. SEE funds will be a maximum of 20 percent of the agency's total FHAP cooperative agreement for the previous contract year, based on approval of eligible activity or activities, and contingent upon the appropriation of funds. All agencies receiving contributions funds are eligible to receive SEE funds if they meet three of the six criteria set out in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section: ( 1 ) The agency enforced a subpoena or made use of its prompt judicial action authority within the past year;
( 2 ) The agency has held at least one administrative hearing or has had at least one case on a court's docket for civil proceedings during the past year;
( 3 ) At least ten percent of the agency's fair housing caseload resulted in written conciliation agreements providing monetary relief for the complainant as well as remedial action, monitoring, reporting, and public interest relief provisions;
( 4 ) The agency has had in the most recent three years, or is currently engaged in, at least one major fair housing systemic investigation requiring an exceptional amount of funds expenditure;
( 5 ) The agency's administration of its fair housing law received meritorious mention for its fair housing complaint processing or other fair housing activities that were innovative. The meritorious mention criterion may be met by an agency's successful fair housing work being identified and/or published by a reputable source. Examples of meritorious mention include, but are not limited to: ( i ) An article in a minority newspaper or a newspaper of general circulation that identifies the agency's role in the successful resolution of a housing discrimination complaint;
( ii ) A letter from a sponsoring organization of a fair housing conference or symposium that identifies the agency's successful participation and presentation at the conference or symposium;
( iii ) A letter of praise, proclamation, or other formal documentation from the mayor, county executive, or governor recognizing the fair housing achievement of the agency.
( 6 ) The agency has completed the investigation of at least 10 fair housing complaints during the previous funding year.
( b ) Regardless of whether an agency meets the eligibility criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, an agency is ineligible for SEE funds if: ( 1 ) Twenty percent or more of an agency's fair housing complaints result in administrative closures; or
( 2 ) The agency is currently on a PIP, or its interim certification or certification has been suspended during the federal fiscal year in which SEE funds are sought.
( c ) SEE funding amounts are subject to the FHAP appropriation by Congress and will be described in writing in the cooperative agreements annually. HUD will periodically publish a list of activities eligible for SEE funding in the Federal Register.
§ 97.1 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Adoption Court* means the State court with jurisdiction over the adoption or the grant of custody for purpose of adoption.
( b ) *U.S. Authorized Entity* means a public domestic authority or an agency or person that is accredited or temporarily accredited or approved by an accrediting entity pursuant to 22 CFR part 96, or a supervised provider acting under the supervision and responsibility of an accredited agency or temporarily accredited agency or approved person.
( c ) *Foreign Authorized Entity* means a foreign Central Authority or an accredited body or entity other than the Central Authority authorized by the relevant foreign country to perform Central Authority functions in a Convention adoption case.
( d ) *Hague Adoption Certificate* means a certificate issued by the Secretary in an outgoing case (where the child is emigrating from the United States to another Convention country) certifying that a child has been adopted in the United States in accordance with the Convention and, except as provided in § 97.4(b), the IAA.
( e ) *Hague Custody Declaration* means a declaration issued by the Secretary in an outgoing case (where the child is emigrating from the United States to another Convention country) declaring that custody of a child for purposes of adoption has been granted in the United States in accordance with the Convention and, except as provided in § 97.4(b), the IAA.
( f ) Terms defined in 22 CFR 96.2 have the meaning given to them therein.
### §5752. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5752 was editorially reclassified as section 11281 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §7385i. Forfeiture of benefits by convicted felons

#### (a) Forfeiture of compensation

Any individual convicted of a violation of section 1920 of title 18, or any other Federal or State criminal statute relating to fraud in the application for or receipt of any benefit under this subchapter or under any other Federal or State workers' compensation law, shall forfeit (as of the date of such conviction) any entitlement to any compensation or benefit under this subchapter such individual would otherwise be awarded for any injury, illness or death covered by this subchapter for which the time of injury was on or before the date of the conviction.

#### (b) Information

Notwithstanding section 552a of title 5, or any other Federal or State law, an agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State shall make available to the President, upon written request from the President and if the President requires the information to carry out this section, the names and Social Security account numbers of individuals confined, for conviction of a felony, in a jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility under the jurisdiction of that agency.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXVI, §3650], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–511; Pub. L. 108–375, div. C, title XXXI, §3162(h), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2186.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–375 substituted "this subchapter" for "part B" wherever appearing.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITYINSURANCE CO.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINESINSURANCE CO., et al.,

Defendant(s).

))))))))))))

No. C08-5686 SBA (BZ)

ORDER RE OVERDUE PAPERS

TO: Plaintiffs and Defendants and their attorneys of

record:

On April 20, 2009, you were ordered to lodge a Settlement

Conference Statement seven days prior to the conference, which

is scheduled for May 27, 2010.  Your statement was due May 20,

2010.  It was not received by chambers. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that if a statement is not lodged by

the close of business Monday, May 24, 2010, plaintiffs and

defendants and their attorneys of record will be sanctioned

$100 a day for each day’s delay, beginning from the date it

was originally due.

Dated: May 21, 2010     

Bernard ZimmermanUnited States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\REFS.2010\PHILADELPHIA LATE PAPER ORD.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-05686-RS   Document 118   Filed 05/21/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-08T17:10:52-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §16912. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 16912 was editorially reclassified as section 20912 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §6992b. Tracking of medical waste

#### (a) Demonstration program

Not later than 6 months after November 1, 1988, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing a program for the tracking of the medical waste listed in section 6992a of this title which is generated in a State subject to the demonstration program. The program shall (1) provide for tracking of the transportation of the waste from the generator to the disposal facility, except that waste that is incinerated need not be tracked after incineration, (2) include a system for providing the generator of the waste with assurance that the waste is received by the disposal facility, (3) use a uniform form for tracking in each of the demonstration States, and (4) include the following requirements:

(A) A requirement for segregation of the waste at the point of generation where practicable.

(B) A requirement for placement of the waste in containers that will protect waste handlers and the public from exposure.

(C) A requirement for appropriate labeling of containers of the waste.

#### (b) Small quantities

In the program under subsection (a), the Administrator may establish an exemption for generators of small quantities of medical waste listed under section 6992a of this title, except that the Administrator may not exempt from the program any person who, or facility that, generates 50 pounds or more of such waste in any calendar month.

#### (c) On-site incinerators

Concurrently with the promulgation of regulations under subsection (a), the Administrator shall promulgate a recordkeeping and reporting requirement for any generator in a demonstration State of medical waste listed in section 6992a of this title that (1) incinerates medical waste listed in section 6992a of this title on site and (2) does not track such waste under the regulations promulgated under subsection (a). Such requirement shall require the generator to report to the Administrator on the volume and types of medical waste listed in section 6992a of this title that the generator incinerated on site during the 6 months following the effective date of the requirements of this subsection.

#### (d) Type of medical waste and types of generators

For each of the requirements of this section, the regulations may vary for different types of medical waste and for different types of medical waste generators.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §11003, as added Pub. L. 100–582, §2(a), Nov. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2952.)