alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ruth Goldsmith, Respondent, v. Louis Goldsmith, Appellant.

In an action by a wife for a judicial separation, in which the husband asserted a counterclaim for the same relief, the defendant appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 26, 1960, upon the decision of the court after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint and counterclaim, as directed him to pay $100 a week for the support of their infant son; as directed him to pay the arrears of temporary alimony and the cost of certain utilities in accordance with a prior order of an Official Referee, dated December 13, 1957; as granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and as denied his (defendant’s) motion to dis-affirm such report; and as denied his motion to modify said prior order of the Official Referee by expunging the alimony arrears therein specified which he (defendant) is now directed to pay by the judgment under review. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the record clearly establishes that defendant should pay at least $100 a week for the child’s support. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §5114. Study and report of unlicensed or unregulated adoption placements

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall provide for a study (the results of which shall be reported to the appropriate committees of the Congress not later than eighteen months after June 25, 2003) designed to determine—

(1) the nature, scope, and effects of the interstate (and, to the extent feasible, intrastate) placement of children in adoptive homes (not including the homes of stepparents or relatives of the child in question) by persons or agencies.1

(2) how interstate placements are being financed across State lines;

(3) recommendations on best practice models for both interstate and intrastate adoptions; and

(4) how State policies in defining special needs children differentiate or group similar categories of children.

#### (b) Dynamics of successful adoption

The Secretary shall conduct research (directly or by grant to, or contract with, public or private nonprofit research agencies or organizations) about adoption outcomes and the factors affecting those outcomes. The Secretary shall submit a report containing the results of such research to the appropriate committees of the Congress not later than the date that is 36 months after June 25, 2003.

#### (c) Interjurisdictional adoption

Not later than 1 year after June 25, 2003, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report that contains recommendations for an action plan to facilitate the interjurisdictional adoption of foster children.

(Pub. L. 95–266, title II, §204, Apr. 24, 1978, 92 Stat. 210; Pub. L. 108–36, title II, §§203, 204, June 25, 2003, 117 Stat. 821.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2003—Pub. L. 108–36 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted subsec. heading and par. (1) designation, substituted "June 25, 2003" for "April 24, 1978" and "to determine—" for "to determine", struck out "which are not licensed by or subject to regulation by any governmental entity" after "by persons or agencies", and added pars. (2) to (4) and subsecs. (b) and (c).

1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,834,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  215,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                    90,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,007,901
<PP&E>                                       2,447,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                 670,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,281,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,261,859
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 19,611,778
<COMMON>                                        62,897
<OTHER-SE>                                   (405,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,289,089
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               842,386
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,897,509
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               159,105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,719,384)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,719,384)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,883,406)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,602,790)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28134]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2003D-0497]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Industry on 
Pharmacogenomics Data Submissions

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Industry on 
Pharmacogenomics Data Submissions'' has been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nelson, Office of Management 
Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of August 11, 2004 
(69 FR 48876), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0557. 
The approval expires on December 31, 2007. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-28134 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### Elizabeth Le Page, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Loretta Le Page, et al., Respondents, v. Continental Casualty Company et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court denying defendants’ motion for a preclusion order, or in the alternative, directing plaintiffs to furnish a further bill of particulars. Plaintiffs Le Page obtained a judgment against plaintiff Towne for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The present action was brought seeking to recover upon a certain automobile liability insurance policy allegedly issued by the defendants to the plaintiff Towne. Defendants demanded a verified bill of particulars containing 12 items. The demand was much too broad, and demanded, among other things, photostatic copies of documents on file in a public office, copies of which could readily be obtained by the defendants. However, plaintiffs made no motion pursuant to subdivision (a) of rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice, but simply ignored the notice and furnished no particulars. Defendants thereafter moved for an order of preclusion, and an alternative order was made precluding the plaintiffs unless they furnished a bill of particulars within 10 days. On February 1,1961, the plaintiffs served a bill of particulars, but defendants returned it to the plaintiffs’ attorneys as inadequate. Defendants did not move, pursuant to subdivision (d) of rule 115, for the service of a further bill until August 3, 1961, more than six months after the bill of particulars was served. There is no authority for the return of a bill of particulars since the rule has provided a specific remedy where a bill of particulars is deemed inadequate. *(Holmes*v. *Liquori,*12 A D 2d 735). The court at Special Term denied the motion for a *1013preclusion order on the ground that the motion was not made within 10 days as required hy subdivision (d) of rule 115, and that there were no special circumstances excusing the delay. However, then the court considered the merits of the motion and determined that there had been a satisfactory compliance with the demand as to certain items and that the remaining items were evidentiary material only and compliance was unnecessary. We find no basis in the record for a determination that there was any abuse of discretion by the Special Term. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ.
#### Vinicio Perez et al., Appellants, v Han Ki Man et al., Respondents.

[835 NYS2d 216]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated December 2, 2005, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Vinicio Perez on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated March 9, 2006, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate an order of the same court dated December 1, 2005, granting the defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Elvin Perez on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 2, 2005 is dismissed as abandoned *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that order dated March 9, 2006 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

In order to vacate the default, the plaintiff Elvin Perez was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action *(see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; *see also Koyenov v Twin-D Transp., Inc.,*33 AD3d 967 [2006]; *New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co.,*28 AD3d 442 [2006]; *Burns v Casale,*276 AD2d 734 [2000]). He failed, however, to demonstrate a reasonable excuse, nor did he proffer any competent evidence establishing that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident. Accordingly, he failed to establish his entitlement to *522the relief requested and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion. Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Fisher, Lifson and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
### §6992k. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1989 through 1991 for purposes of carrying out activities under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §11011, formerly §11012, as added Pub. L. 100–582, §2(a), Nov. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2958; renumbered §11011, Pub. L. 105–362, title V, §501(h)(1)(B), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3284.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 11011 of Pub. L. 89–272 was renumbered section 11010 and is classified to section 6992j of this title.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 DEBORAH E. GAUDET, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3 v. No. A-1-CA-35510 4
TONI DREW and 5 RESILIENCY THERAPY, 6 Defendant-Appellees. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 8 David K. Thomson, District Judge 9 Deborah E. Gaudet 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 Pro Se Appellant 12 Christopher R. Reed 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellee 15
MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 GARCIA, Judge. 172 {1} Plaintiff Deborah Gaudet (Appellant), a self-represente d litigant, appealed from 1 the district court’s order dismissing her complaint with prejudice as a sanction for 2 failure to provide discovery. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing summary 3 affirmance on January 20, 2017. The calendar notice was mailed to the address on file 4 for Ms. Gaudet and was returned by the pos tal service as “attempted not known.” The 5 Rules of Appellate Procedure require a party proceeding pro se to promptly inform 6 this Court of any change of mailing address. Rule 12-301(D) NMRA (“Counsel for 7 a party, or any party proceeding pro se, sh all promptly give no tice of any change of 8 mailing address or telephone number by filing a notice with the cl erk of the court in 9 each pending cause in which counsel or th e party is appearing and by serving the 10 notice upon all other counsel and pro se parties.”). Because the time for filing a 11 response to the calendar notice has expired, we now affirm for the reasons stated in 12 the calendar notice. 13 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

__________________ ______________ 15 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17

_______________________________ 18 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 193 _______________________________ 1 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 2
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTIE’S INC., a New York corporation,

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 08-05445 WHA (Lead Case)

Consolidated with:

No. C 09-00471 WHA

ORDER REGARDING 

ONE-PAGE ILLUSTRATIVE

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED

TO THE JURY

For the sake of completeness of the record, counsel from both sides shall file copies of

their respective one-page illustrative timelines and damages estimates that were provided to the

jury prior to deliberation BY NOON ON MONDAY, MAY 24, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00471-WHA Document 40 Filed 05/21/10 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SUSSEX FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, 

INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BAYERISCHE HYPO-UND VEREINSBANK 

AG, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08-4791 SC 

ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO 

MAGISTRATE'S ORDER

 

 The Court has received Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate's 

Order and Request for District Court's De Novo Review of Order, 

Docket No. 167 ("Objection"), which raises objections to the 

Magistrate Judge's January 28, 2010 order addressing discovery 

issues and administrative relief, Docket No. 162 ("Magistrate's 

Order"). The Court has reviewed, de novo, the matters outlined in 

the Objection as well as the papers submitted by both parties in 

the underlying dispute, and finds no reason to disturb the 

Magistrate's Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

Any legal error in the Magistrate's Order is deemed to be 

insubstantial, and the Court agrees in substance with the outcome 

reached by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's Objection is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2010 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04791-SC Document 169 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 1
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2713 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Anthracenesulfonic acid, 4-[[3- 

(acetylamino)phenyl]amino]-1-amino-9,10-dihydro-9,10-d ioxo-, monosodium salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Anthracenesulfonic 

acid, 4-[[3-(acetylamino)phenyl]amino]-1-amino-9,10- 

dihydro-9,10-d ioxo-, monosodium salt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-ANTHRACENESULFONIC ACID, 4-[[3- 

4 (ACETYLAMINO)PHENYL]AMINO]-1-AMINO5 9,10-DIHYDRO-9,10-DIOXO-, MONOSODIUM 

6 SALT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 
2 

•HR 2713 IH 

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.12.18 2-Anthracenesulfonic acid, 

4-[[3- 

(acetylamino)phenyl]amino]- 

1-amino-9,10-dihydro-9,10- 

dioxo-, monosodium salt 

(CAS No. 70571–81–2) 

(provided for in subheading 

3204.12.45) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### § 203.462 Pro rata payment of premium before termination.

No contract of insurance shall be terminated until the lender has paid to the Commissioner the pro rata portion of the current annual insurance premium.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Janet M. Crooks, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, As Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Decision affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
### §§4572, 4573. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §962(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 593

Section 4572, Pub. L. 91–616, title III, §302, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1849; Pub. L. 93–282, title I, §106(a), May 14, 1974, 88 Stat. 127; Pub. L. 94–371, §3(b), July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1035; Pub. L. 95–83, title III, §311(b), Aug. 1, 1977, 91 Stat. 397; Pub. L. 96–180, §8, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1303, related to amounts, criteria, etc., for State allotments.

Section 4573, Pub. L. 91–616, title III, §303, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1850; Pub. L. 93–282, title I, §106(b), May 14, 1974, 88 Stat. 127; Pub. L. 94–371, §5(a), (b)(1), (c), July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1036; Pub. L. 95–83, title III, §311(a)(1), (2), Aug. 1, 1977, 91 Stat. 397; Pub. L. 95–622, title II, §268(b), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3437; Pub. L. 96–79, title I, §115(j)(1), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 610; Pub. L. 96–180, §9, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1303, related to submission, contents, etc., for State plans.
Office ofthe 

### Chiefand Council Kirk 

# E Francis 

### Chief
Bill 

## Thompson

Vice

# C Wayne 

# T Mitchell



### Repwscnaltire 2014 January 23 

# Hon

# H CurtisSpalding Regional Administrator 

## EPA 

# New England Headquarters 5 Post Office Square Suite 100 

### Boston 

# MA 021093912 

# Re Water Quality Standards in the Penobscot Indian Reservation 

### Dear Regional Administrator 

### Spaulding Penobscot Nation 12 

### Wabtmaki 

## Way Community Buildinr Indian Island 

### Maine 04468 

# 207 S277776 

# FAX

# 207 8276042

I write in follow 

### up to 

### ongoing government

## togovernment consultations the 

## EPA and the 

### Penobscot Nation have had in reference to the administration 

### and operation 

### ofthe 

### CleanWater Act within the 

### Penobscot Indian 

### Reservation 

# We very 

## much appreciate the respect 

### you have shown forour

### views and the spirit 

### of President 

## Obamas November 

# 5 2009 

# Memorandum for 

### Heads of Executive 

### Departments and

## Agencies
This is to notify 

### you that the 

### Penobscot Nation is 

### promulgating water quality standards for application within the 

### Penobscot Indian Reservation pursuant to sections 

### 303 and 

# 518e ofthe Clean 

### Water 

## Act 33 §§ 

### 1313 

# I377e We expect to 

### have these standards ready for public notice within the next couple 

### ofmonths and 

## we will be submitting 

### them to

### your office for

### approval Given this 

### development 

## we ask that 

### you consult further with the 

### Penobscot Nation to address issues surrounding 

### any competing authorities 

### between the

# EPA the State 

### and the Penobscot 

### Nation with respect to the promulgation ofwater quality standards within the 

### Reservation 

# We greatly appreciate 

### your consideration Sincerely

Kirk 

### Francis Chief 

### Penobscot Nation



## cc Tribal 

### Council Penobscot 

### Nation John Banks Natural 

### Resources Director 

### Penobscot Nation 

## Mark Chavarce 

## Esq Jill Elise

### Grant 

## Esq Kaighn Smith

## JrEsq
### §806. Rescission of funds declined by States, territories, or other governmental entities

#### (a) Rescission

#### (1) In general

Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), if a State, territory, or other governmental entity provides notice to the Secretary of the Treasury in the manner provided by the Secretary of the Treasury that the State, territory, or other governmental entity intends to decline all or a portion of the amounts that are to be awarded to the State, territory, or other governmental entity from funds appropriated under this subchapter, an amount equal to the unaccepted amounts or portion of such amounts allocated by the Secretary of the Treasury as of the date of such notice that would have been awarded to the State, territory, or other governmental entity shall be rescinded from the applicable appropriation account.

#### (2) Exclusion

Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to funds that are to be paid to a State under section 803 of this title for distribution to nonentitlement units of local government.

#### (3) Rules of construction

Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as—

(A) preventing a sub-State governmental entity, including a nonentitlement unit of local government, from notifying the Secretary of the Treasury that the sub-State governmental entity intends to decline all or a portion of the amounts that a State may distribute to the entity from funds appropriated under this subchapter; or

(B) allowing a State to prohibit or otherwise prevent a sub-State governmental entity from providing such a notice.

#### (b) Use for deficit reduction

Amounts rescinded under subsection (a) shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury for the sole purpose of deficit reduction.

#### (c) State or other governmental entity defined

In this section, the term "State, territory, or other governmental entity" means any entity to which a payment may be made directly to the entity under this subchapter other than a Tribal government, as defined in sections 801(g), 802(g), and 804(d) of this title, and an eligible Tribal government, as defined in section 805(f) of this title.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title VI, §606, as added Pub. L. 117–328, div. LL, §105, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 6105.)